* Mason Loring Bliss (ma...@blisses.org) wrote:
> It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. I
> value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free
> software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values
> many important th
Greetings,
* Holger Wansing (hwans...@mailbox.org) wrote:
> Geert Stappers wrote:
> > Posting of subscriber with establish repuation
> > go through without a delay. It skips "review queue"
Sure.
> > New subcribers will recieve postings. Their first
> > posting gets a delay of N minutes.
> >
>
* Geert Stappers (stapp...@stappers.nl) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:55:18AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > * Holger Wansing (hwans...@mailbox.org) wrote:
> > > Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > > Posting of subscriber with establ
Greetings,
* Ihor Antonov (ihor@antonovs.family) wrote:
> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:15:23 PM PDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ihor Antonov writes:
> > > On Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:51:27 AM PDT Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >> The forum to which you sent this message is already moderated and has
> > >> b
Greetings,
* to...@tuxteam.de (to...@tuxteam.de) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM wrote:
> > >
> > > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy /
> > > humorous,
> > > even though his actions are fa
Greetings all,
As discussed at DebConf, I'd like to renew the general idea of having
a group of individuals who are available to help groups in Debian (and
even outside, when they're communicating with Debian groups)
communicate more effectively with each other. A few different
ideas/na
MJR,
* MJ Ray (m...@phonecoop.coop) wrote:
> I wrote many years ago that I support this concept for lists in
> particular
> http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/debian.html#listmoderators
> but I think it could be applied to many other situations too.
Thanks for the link! That looks very similar t
Holger,
* Holger Levsen (hol...@layer-acht.org) wrote:
> I like the idea and I think that having this role somewhat formalised will
> help achieving it goals.
Thanks! Do you have some specific thoughts on what you think it needs
to be formalised..?
Thanks again,
Stephe
* Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is something that should be handled at the pam level and shouldn't
> require special handling from ssh. (Assuming a good ssh pam
> implementation.) The last time I looked at the securid pam module from
> rsa it didn't work with our ssh, but that's b
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I received the following message from someone at Google:
> > Google is interested in advertising on debian.org. I realize your
> > site currently isn't running any advertising, however what we're
> > proposing is much differen
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Honestly, I cannot imagine a reason, why the Debian projects should
> turn their web pages into commercial web pages by adding Google ads
> to them.
It's not clear to me that having ads would make them 'commercial'. This
would be something that would
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you seek to generate income with your website, then it's not a
> not-for-profit one anymore but a for-profit one and is actually
> commercial. Several of our sponsors are universities which have
> strict profit/non-profit policies. For sure, my uni
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> First of all I think it is a bad idear based on the fact that it will
> make debian appear commercial. It will look like debian has business
> relations with what ever those ads represents.
I disagree. There are ads on postgresql.org and I certainly don't think
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 06:35:15PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I object. Not by any price we have to pay (and turning www.debian.org
> > > into a commercial page *is* a high price, which could also result in
> > > losing
* Alexander Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041213 18:14]:
> > more money is always good.
>
> AFAIK Debian has more money, than we can (usefully) spend (at our
> current rate). I think that was pointed out just a feek weeks ago in
> the "donate for e-Ma
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost:
> > I disagree. There are ads on postgresql.org and I certainly don't think
> > they make it look like Postgresql is commercial.
>
> I think it's disappointing. If this development continues, the only
* Lars H. Beuse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Those Google Ads are look the way they do. cause they're made for a special
> target group. So that's just quit a good marketing idea (not new). If you
> want you could say thats also way to make people think Google is different,
> they're serious, th
* Pete van der Spoel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041213 19:30]:
> >I personally don't see the issues so problematic as you do. But: A lot
> >of (valuable) project members disagree, and, frankly speaking, keeping
> >you (and some other people happy) is much mor
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I startet to use Debian, because it was not commercial, it was entire
> > > free, and I'm afraid, this will be the first step in the wrong
> > > direction. It will lower our princ
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I tend to agree that we don't seem to need the money currently, although
> > I do wonder about the possibility of what we might do with a consistent
> > dependable revenue stream (debconf trips for
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Please read what I said:
>
> . When we put commercial adverts on our web pages our sponsors may
>have to decline their offer. Take (German) universities for
>example. These would have to be replaced, probably by actually
>renting rackspa
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:31:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Do you have any suggestion as to something that'd be a consistent
> > > revenue source for Debian that you *wouldn't*
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:22:48 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Bringing in money, however it is done, does not mean you're
> > for-profit or not-for-profit. Your concern about mirrors is valid
>
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:53:46 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Honestly, I cannot imagine a reason, why the Debian projects should
> >> turn their we
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:31:57 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Funny, but you're happy to contribute to a distribution which is
> > packaged up and sold on store shelves by for-profit organizations?
&
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2004-12-14 14:35:54 +0000 Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> . When we are supposed to generate income with the web page it is a
> >>commercial we
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:48:38 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This gloom-and-doom prediction is really getting old. No, it
> > wouldn't become a precedent, no, it wouldn't lower our principles,
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I wouldn't have any problem w/ Debian selling Debian CDs
>
> Who would do the selling?
Interesting question, I imagine it would have to be SPI on behalf of
Debian.
> > Having a pay-per-bug is an
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2004-12-14 17:41:55 +0000 Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You know, that's funny, I *work* for a non-profit organization.
>
> Meanwhile, all developers on SPI projects are sitting on the beach
> drinking cockt
* Alexander Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041214 17:18]:
> > > If no money changes hands, I would see this as a good thing too.
> > Umh, don't we link to the consultants and CD vendors already?
>
> Yes we do. And if we hear, that a CD vendor get's th
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Interesting question, I imagine it would have to be SPI on behalf of
> > Debian.
>
> But which specific individual would do the selling? It would involve a
> significant amount of work even if as much as
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I would object to Debian itself selling copies of the CD's, or
> > > requiring payment for access to jigdo files or the archive, or a
>
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Not *entirely* sure what you mean here. As mentioned elsewhere before,
> > SPI might have some use for an accounting service at the very least.
>
> That should be done by SPI, not us.
Well, sure, but it's something intelligent to do w/ a consisten
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:27:15 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Perhaps not, as I said, I thought it'd be an interesting discussion,
> > not that we should go out and market it as a new Debian thing to
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Right. Money, in the form of donations, is nothing
> new. Money-for-work or money-for-advertizing is. There is a
> difference; the former is generouisly donated by people voluntarily
> because of the good they thing debian is doing; the latte
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:14 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Well, sure, but it's something intelligent to do w/ a consistent
> > revenue stream t
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:07:51 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I don't see it as all that much effort, I guess, but I do see it as
> > something that we really should have *anyway* (the mirror policy,
&
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:09:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > It's amazing what money can buy?
>
> I am aware of the corrupting lure of the love of money, yes ;-)
I'm sure you are, but that&#
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At first it was a good idear to post this question here but since
> yesterday nothing much productive has happened.
>
> Without offending anyone it is a bit annoying to watch the same couple
> of people going on and on about this issue - leading to nowhere
> (
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > SPI *is* a business...
>
> SPI is a corporation. That does not make it a business (just attend a few
> board meettings...)
I've been to a few of them, and am an SPI member... corporation,
business,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digit
* Kim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Then I guess let me just say "some of us aren't quite done yet." :)
>
> And thats cool, but it seems to me that the discussion has left the
> original area and has become a "one on one" disc
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:33:14PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > And I disagree, and these are only a few things upon which we could
> > spend money, if we weren't so terribly concerned that it's a bad idea to
> > spen
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:24:32 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > and Debian is by *far* the controller of SPI.
>
> It is? I would tend to agree that people who are interested in
> debian also are invo
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates
> > that we trust his decisions on such matters as how to spend Debian
> >
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Simple, the DPL selects them. We elected him, and that indicates
> > > that we trust
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:40 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > said:
> > > > Simple, the DPL selects them. We el
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:33:22PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It's a thought anyway. Those involved with SPI have probably had some
> > thoughts along these lines before, I imagine.
>
> You're thinking about fo
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Currently:
>
> "We would like this to happen and can make it happen by donating hardware"
>
> Your proposed scenario:
>
> "We would like this to happen, and if we don't donate any hardware
> then it will happen anyway because they'll just buy the ki
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:26:19PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > SPI already exists, and already owns Debian's trademarks.
>
> It holds them in trust. That is not the same thing.
Right, that means it holds them but can&
* Glenn B. Jakobsen - Kazi Networks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was wondering, when will you release a net installer or a full installer
> for the EM64T Xeon CPU. I know Gentoo already has one but I mostly prefer
> using Debian since I have used it for some time now.
You probably want to addres
* Alexander Wirt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Florian Weimer schrieb am Sonntag, den 24. Juli 2005:
>
> > How is Debian related to the "Debian Core Consortium"? Why are they
> > using the name "Debian"?
> Maybe you sould wait until its been more than a plan to do something before
> crying about n
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ["Debian Core Consortium" ideas]
> > No, actually, it's probably better to make sure those involved
> > understand the trademark issues *before* the
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-24 07:25]:
> >
> >>As always, feedback welcome. We're not trying to step on any toes.
> >
> > http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian-announce/msg00083.html
>
> Thank you,
eating this new entity would have a conflict of
interest as to if the submark should be granted or not, so they
shouldn't be involved in the decision making associated with granting it
or not.
Stephen
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
ke
> > some time to consider my response. I can say with 100% certainty that
> > a trademark policy more restrictive than the one adopted by Linus
> > Torvalds for Linux isn't what the founder of this project had in mind.
> >
> > -ian
> >
> > Steph
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Uh, my response would be appropriate if Debian *did* have the trademark
> > policy Linus uses for Linux. It's basically "ask first, get an official
> > submark before using it, or don't use
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>Lest this be misinterpreted, let me clarify that the DCC
> >>group will abide by whatever Debian's trademark policy is. "My
> >>re
* Joerg Wendland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 05:18:50PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > In any case, I think the major lesson from "Trusted Debian" and from
> > the URL above is the part about "you should ask us _first_". Debian
> > is usually pretty unforgiving to peop
* Joerg Wendland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:48:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > It's not an impossible thing to the, the LMI folks seem to do it alot,
> > Debian could do it too, though in this case I don't think DCC is
> > appropria
* Thomas Viehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > "Trusted Debian" was an open source project too and yet the Debian
> > project felt their use of the "DEBIAN" mark wasn't appropriate. There
> > is an effort going on to update the trademark policy (which will also
> > make
* Ian Murdock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Re the organization formerly known as the Debian Core Consortium: No
> need. We won't use the word Debian in the name--we'll call
> ourselves the DCC Alliance, where DCC stands for "Debian Common Core".
That seems somewhat better at least.
> Re Debian ha
* Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:57:20AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It would compete with long-standing suppliers (debianshop.com?) and may
> > deter UK commercial support, which needs to grow.
>
> Being cognizant of this problem is
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, there's a BIG similarity:
> > * both took the debian name for business use without consent;
>
> You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has
> anything at all to do with "business". D
* Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [ I've been trying to let this stuff drop. *sigh* ]
I'm quite sure you'd appriciate it being dropped entirely and for you to
be able to go on your merry way doing whatever you'd like.
Unfortunately, life doesn't quite work that way. :)
> d. You could
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >> You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has
> >> anything at all to do with "business&quo
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It's just a more formal, more accountable situation than what was
> happening before when Steve shoved Debian money into a shoebox under his
> bed.
Things have gotten muddled though and that's the problem. There's a
number of issues here:
1) Holding m
* Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Every post of yours on this subject, in my opinion, shows you *adore*
> bureaucracy or you wouldn't persist in this mindnumbingly dull debate
> over a point which has no relevance to -project any more (given the
> grant of the trademark use).
I hate to
* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>I realise that money can be very devisive but these are relatively small
> >>amounts of money used well for the good of Debian.
> >
>
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:12:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by
> > > involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust
> > >
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> It seems that you are under the impression that the activities such as the
> >> selling of T-shirts are done for the purpose of raising money. (Not
> >> surpr
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It seems to me they are selling t-shirts and whatever and the result of that
> money serves to buy more t-shirts and stuff, is donated to debian as UK-based
> money when asked by the DPL/SPI/whoever, and occasionally serves to pay beer
> for the anual barb
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The debian trademark policy says no businesses get to use
> > the mark. Why should this selling association, which ignores
> > good practice, get a swift exception, while Ian Murdock's
> > develo
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #2 and #5 work fine together also but shouldn't be done under
> > something claiming close ties to Debian.
>
> Right, and there's some amount of contention on th
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050907 14:02]:
> > I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to
> > not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to
> > say that I&#x
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:03:03AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm not so sure I agree with this interpretation... When we claim to
> > not sell products, and therefore claim to be non-commercial, I'd have to
> > say
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:52:40AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > What makes it even worse is that on debian.org websites we claim to not
> > sell products yet at the *Debian* booth at whichever UK expos DUS goes
> > to we *are*
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:47:24AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Perhaps there's a language misunderstanding here. Commercial *means*
> > selling things, at least where I'm from. What you're referring to seems
> >
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe there is some animosity due to the opt-out issue but that's
> > not what I'm focused on since it's not terribly interesting. [...]
>
> No, not interesting, unti
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:34:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I don't know how real those concerns are, but I know I've heard them.
>
> Man, I love open source FUD.
Yes, I rock. :) Sorry, I didn't look up th
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> AIUI, that's been frowned upon in the US because actually selling
> things makes you liable for collecting/paying sales tax which is a huge
> nuisance. Giving stuff away and asking for a donation, meanwhile, doesn't.
>
> Different countries handle
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Nope, if you are really from the US, then your view on this is limited by
> > > the
> > > way you thi
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:11:25AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Let's say your paroquial association or housewife get-together
> > > association,
> > > start to
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For this part it's a misunderstanding of what "commercial" means. I
> > tried to work past this in the thread on d-d where I brought up the
> > possibility of Deb
* Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Even so, that was the general policy as I understood it... Should we be
> > saying that we don't sell CDs (do the DUS folks sell CDs? I dunno) only
> > there? Should we be pointing out that we
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
>
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if folks would review
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the
> points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues
> which came up the last time and presenting them.
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> > 'no
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should
> > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other
> > derivative, it's a significant operati
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think this explains my preference for the package maintainer listed in
> Debian-derivative distributions to be changed even for otherwise
> unmodified source packages. To avoid forking source packages, maybe
> Ubuntu could cause the maintainer fiel
* Ciuca, Josephine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I just wanted to let you know about a GPL violation in the distribution
> miniVDR, a distribution based on Depian with so-called GPL licensed
> patches (www.minivdr.de). They refuse to share the sources and are
> willing to give them only for 15euros,
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Just leave Debian, like that, and who will give me back all those years
> and uncountable hours i have sacrificed to debian ? Or the actual money
> and time and equipement i have given to debian ?
Funny thing about volunteers.. They tend to give their t
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward
> it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time,
> I will send it.
I don't think you should forward it.
> Then again, if someone objects to it, just
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> As others have said, it is not fair to put on me the extra burden of recasting
> the message in my own words. Plus, I don't think it does really archieve
> anything.
Then don't post it, and please stop this thread (by not replying
further).
Th
* Nico Golde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Looks like you don't understand the law. There is no
> list with tools which met the criteria. But the criteria is
> that the tool enables or helps you to get access to private
> data which matches nmap no matter if you use it for personal
> network secu
* Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) wrote:
> I'm hoping that we can convince the release team to change their mind.
I doubt you can, and I hope you don't. It could have been announced
better, but in general I think it's a good thing for Debian. Please get
over how it was announced.
Thank
* Sandro Tosi (mo...@debian.org) wrote:
> > From what I understand because the long freeze period we had last time
> > is making problems all around for users (of unstable/testing) and
> > developers as well as the release itself.
>
> This is a fact (lenny release was too long) but doesn't address
On 10 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suggest that the non-free packages be replaced by installer
> > assistants,
>
> I would support such a solution as a compromise, and in fact, have
> already indicated such. As long as Debian does not distribut
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> tension between them. To many of us - indeed, a majority by my count
Let us not try to decieve. Where did you get 'your count'
and what makes you think the silent majority is more likely to agree
w/ you as to not? The only 'count' that matter
Greetings,
Intel has kindly loaned us a very nice em64t machine which is
currently running amd64/pure64. I can give people accounts if they're
interested and could do something useful on it, just contact me off
list and whatnot. The box is physically hosted at my house off my
less-tha
* Daniel Ruoso ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On the other side, d-d-a is a list which has a very low traffic, and
> certainly almost every developer see the posts in d-d-a, but... not
> every email that intends to reach all developers is appropriate to d-d-a
> since it's not allways an announce.
>
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
