lly called
"Debian GNU/Linux".
You can find the source code of them in the coressponding websites of
the upstream projects. You can also download their source code along
with every other piece of software that makes Debian in
https://sources.debian.org <https://sources.debian.org/&
I mean the source code files of the OS
Could you please help ?
Best Regards,
Gauthier Kwatatshey
Gauthier Kidjat Kwatatshey
Principal
Storm Reply
Ul. Wroclawska 54
40-217 - Katowice - POLAND
phone: +48 32 74568-00
g.kidjatkwatats...@reply.com<mailto:g.kidjatkwatats...@reply.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 03:00:04PM +, Gauthier Kidjat Kwatatshey wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'm contacting you because we need your help or recommendations on how to
> download the full source code for Debian
> <https://bugs.debian.org/lists.debian.org>
>
Go
Hello,
I'm contacting you because we need your help or recommendations on how to
download the full source code for Debian
<https://bugs.debian.org/lists.debian.org>
Looking forward to hearing from you
Best Regards
Gauthier Kwatatshey
Gauthier Kidjat Kwatatshey
Principal
Sto
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 04:27:28PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:14 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> > I'm unaware of Russian law at the moment: it is possible that import and
> > use in Russia would be legitimate under Russian law.
>
> There already are Russian Debian der
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:14 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> The review by the NSA went long ago. Debian has treated the code as being
> exportable worldwide but has not normally accepted new official mirrors in
> countries subject to US sanctions like Iran, Syria or Cuba.
There has been an off
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:44:02PM +0300, Екатерина Лапшина wrote:
> Good afternoon!
>
>
Good afternoon, Ekaterina
>
> We are planning to use Debian Source Code build 11.3 (the “Software”) in
> Russia and have several questions related to Unrestricted Encryption Source
&
Good afternoon!
We are planning to use Debian Source Code build 11.3 (the “Software”) in
Russia and have several questions related to Unrestricted Encryption Source
Code Notification Commodity (
https://www.debian.org/legal/notificationforarchive, “Notification”) and
export restrictions of the
* John , 2014-09-29, 07:29:
Hey, just for curiosity, do you guys read all the source code before
make it available on repos?
For a nice piece of software, I read all the code. For new releases of
software that's already is Debian, I read whole debdiffs.
But I can afford doing it
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, John wrote:
> Hey, just for curiosity, do you guys read all the source code before make it
> available on repos?
With a stretch of definition of 'all', I usually
1. glance/review high level structure/licenses
2. identify if any 3rd party module must go i
Hey, just for curiosity, do you guys read all the source code before make it
available on repos?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.o
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
>
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:04:29AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> > I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> > some operation purpose.
>
> You can put the following in your so
Hi Venkatesh,
On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if
Hi Sir,
I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
me.
Thanking you,
Venkatesh Pawar.
have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
upon ones computer.
Recognizing this, the Debian
y have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
> aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
> upon ones computer.
>
&
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:50:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
> > > software) requires works which are not fr
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or
> > software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose
> > source is not available by making such wo
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
> not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
> modification so that purchasers of their hardware can
> exercise their freedom t
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about
> what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it
> currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN
> PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL.
ly was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
> aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
>
he preferred form for modification may not actually be
> digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availabi
nsferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
> aspect of having the freedo
source code to users is a critical
aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
upon ones computer.
Recognizing this, the Debian Project:
A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian
system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:13:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware
> > side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of
> > working with it it l
ny case, they are not programs (there is no sequential operation, no
program counters etc) but data that gets loaded into memory circuits
(SRAM) inside the physical device.
However they do have source code (Verilog and VHDL are the relevant
languages). The hex dumps in the drivers are not only not
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
>> you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
>> This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
>> For
MJ Ray wrote:
> I think the idea that refusing to ship non-free firmware in main will
> strengthen demand for free firmware is worthy of consideration. Debian
> helps users to take control of their operating system. Increasing the
> demand for free firmware might also help users to take control
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
>> > isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
>> > f
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > > opposite is true. I des
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> > opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> > communications
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it's the latter, I maintain that this is precisely the subject matter of
> the proposed GR; we obviously *don't* have agreement in Debian over what
> should or should not be considered a "program", so I think that's begging
> the question.
However,
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the
> opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive
> communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because
> they are diffi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term "firmware"
> to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could
> include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs
> to execute on
Joe Smith wrote:
>
> "Anthony Towns" wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
>>of the social contract as:
>>
>>"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
>> component."
>>
>>(For reference
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:02:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Recent history -- in particular, GR 2006-001's winning option --
> suggests that broad DFSG exemptions, when treated as clarifications or
> interpretations of the project, are not necessarily so clear-cut about
> requiring a 3:1 super
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> If you want to amend the DFSG to state
>
> "3. Source Code
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not apply to
> firmware, defined as ."
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
I can't second because I'm not a DD, but this proposal is very eloquent and
well-thought out. You *rock*. This statement would be a worthy foundation
document.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
B
y way in which an executable MIPS binary is not a "program",
by any definition.
If you want to amend the DFSG to state
"3. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source
code as well as compiled form. However, this requirement does not ap
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, all the references I have found tell me that firmware
> is computer programs.
>
Interesting, as I note that *none* of those you quoted do so -- although
some do say that it is "software" that is stored in less-volatile
storage than RAM.
Given the sca
hat having the firmware on a ROM
> > > wouldn't also be?
> > The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
> > ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source code. Until
> > then, this is a red herring.
>
> Note that while Peter is
Alexander Wirt schrieb am Freitag, den 25. August 2006:
> Don Armstrong schrieb am Donnerstag, den 24. August 2006:
>
> > I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
> I second this proposal.
I have to say a few mores word to it. It would be fully ok for me if we
release
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process.
I like your proposal too. As for D, maybe we could word it a bit differently,
as it will be a arduous task, with little success chances in the general case.
Maybe w
ks, the preferred form for modification may not actually be
> digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availabi
[Matthew Garrett]
> The biggest area which is likely to bite us is with network cards,
> though we'll probably lose some degree of SCSI support as well.
Fortunately, at least with SCSI, users have a choice. They can buy
Adaptec or LSI 53c* and they get _truly free_ firmware (in the case of
Adap
substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it;
>however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a
>hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their
>computers.
>
> 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to
>
ks, the preferred form for modification may not actually be
> digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is
> not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for
> modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can
This should read 'hardware can exercise'; I had
gitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was
> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no
> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
> aspect of having
onger available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent
possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical
aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running
upon ones computer.
Recognizing this, the Debian Project:
A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distribut
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Anthony Towns" wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
>>of the social contract as:
>>
>>"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
>> component."
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:08:08 -0600, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj wrote:
>> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
>> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
>> define: computer program gives: , | * A computer program is a
>> set of
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:23:20 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As you and I discussed previously on IRC, I don't agree with this
> amendment. The premise of my proposal is that we are *not* granting
> an exception nor redefining any terms, we are merely recognizing a
> latent def
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:30:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> he doesn't use the leader@ address even on issues related to his DPL role, as
> i well know, so this is no guarantee.
AFAICT, he always signs those mails with DPL in the signature. Plus, at
least in this thread, he did use [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sven Luther]
> > To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> > tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
>
> I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
> observations and o
"Anthony Towns" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point
of the social contract as:
"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free
component."
(For reference, that replaced the following text from
[Sven Luther]
> To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the
> tone of your reply as well as the content of it.
I wasn't offended. AJ's tone wasn't derogatory - he made some
observations and offered some advice. He's quite right that my views
are not those of a develope
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered
> > under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one
> > ever wo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I'm undecided whether it's a good idea to exclude them from the
> distribution CDs and so on. How big is the problem of vital hardware
> which won't work without firmware being copied to it? Should we split
> non-free into non-free-hardware and non
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> > actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> > implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's
> actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to
> implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that
> refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anyt
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > OK, never saw that drives. But where is the problem with them. Works
> > without needing any non-free stuff being put in the operating systems
> > and people might be able to replace it. No good example.
>
> Wait. So by "Non-free
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
>> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
>> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
>> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstra
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 17:31]:
> If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
> some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly impressed. Or, for that matter, a
> vaguely modern processor. Let alone bootstrapping a system (LinuxBIOS
> will suffice for a v
Le mer 23 août 2006 13:35, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> The followup was only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was*
> Peter's take, and not necessarily the project's, and that debate is
> still appropriate.
d-vote@ is a discussion list, and nothing here that isn't a vote
result can be t
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true in either direction. Not every non-free application has
> a free counterpart[1]. And not every hardware needs firmware.
If you can find a single hard drive on the market that doesn't contain
some sort of firmware, I'll be greatly imp
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obs
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 16:40]:
> > We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> > you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> > This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> > For this discussion
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are giving a promise here, that with the stuff in our distribution
> you have the freedom to use it, to give it to others and to fix it.
> This means the missing of legal obstacles and the possibility to do so.
> For this discussion "preferred form
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060823 15:46]:
> Certainly, it's one of the purposes. But I don't think we've *lost*
> anything by distributing binary firmware. Consider the cases:
>
> 1. Everything in hardware. You're not able to fix anything without a
>soldering iron ... and good lu
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 06:19:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:04 -0700, Steve Langasek
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Hi folks, Ever since the sarge release, an ongoing question has
aving the firmware on a
>> > ROM wouldn't also be?
>> The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices
>> containing ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source
>> code. Until then, this is a red herring.
> Note that while Peter is currently
Followups set to -vote; why are we cc'ing this across multiple lists?
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El mi?rcoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escrib?a:
> > We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 14:59:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett
escribía:
> > No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what it's
> > required by it.
> The DFSG apply to "The Debian system". The social contract doesn't
> define what "The Debian system" is. We could
Jacobo Tarrio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns
> escribía:
>
>> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
>> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
>
> No, the DFSG
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > isn't producing a distribution for the microcontroller in my
> > fibrechannel card, it's produc
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >> > Well, the only one who could clai
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:14:03AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I think the key distinction (as far as I'm concerned) is that Debian
> > > isn't producing a distr
El miércoles, 23 de agosto de 2006 a las 21:24:16 +1000, Anthony Towns escribía:
> We choose to apply the DFSG both to the components that the Debian system
> requires, and to what we use to provide debian.org services. It can be
No, the DFSG are applied to what's provided by Debian, not to what
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some
>> > representativity
>> > of the project as
On Aug 23, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
> non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
> making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
"Firmwares are not progra
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> > definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> > define: computer program gives:
> > ,
> > | * A computer program is a set of s
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> > processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
> Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
> ba
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:35:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say Peter's take didn't matter, because personally I consider
> it self-evident and unarguable that it does matter. The followup was
> only intended to make sure it was clear that it *was* Peter's take,
> and not necessarily
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> > of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> > opinion,
Manoj wrote:
> Actually, I disagree, and, even worse, so does the common
> definition of the phrase computer program: asking google about
> define: computer program gives:
> ,
> | * A computer program is a set of statements or instructions to be
> | used directly or indirectly in a c
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:03:17PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectat
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity
> of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own
> opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster.
Anyone can claim th
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:40:11PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
>
> That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
> did not "blame" Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
well, its the e
> reminder was, is rude and inappropriate. That's not the first tham that
> aj does such reminders[1], and especiall beeing the DPL[2], I find that
> disturbing.
Well, even being the DPL, aj is perfectly allowed to have personal
opinions, even some that you (or me) may find irrelevant or wrong
Le mer 23 août 2006 12:16, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> > Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> > believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> > people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation
> > instead of the merits of the com
> No, but he blamed Peter for participating in the conversation because he was
That's not my understanding of aj's post. From my point of view, he
did not "blame" Peter. He didn't even address him directly.
> Maybe it is not best for us non-english speaker to comment on the content of
> aj's post
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> > believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> > people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
> > the merit
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 07:19:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > > and his expe
> Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
> believe a commend on a list has no merit, you explicitly ask other
> people to ignore it, based on a stupid DD/non-DD segregation instead of
> the merits of the comment.
This is not my understanding of aj's comment, Josselin.
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 19:19 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
> with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth
> discussing.
Why would I do that, when you are taking the opposite way? When you
belie
hat having the firmware on a ROM
> > > wouldn't also be?
> > The day Debian begins to distribute ROM chips, or devices containing
> > ROM chips, I will expect those chips to come with source code. Until
> > then, this is a red herring.
>
> Note that while Peter is
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> > as a w
Le mercredi 23 août 2006 à 17:38 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> as a whole.
An
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
