Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 09, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> > If I had apt or dpkg giving me warnings anytime I selected a non-free
> > package, I could easily maintain this state of affairs.
>
> Remove non-free (and non-US/non-free) from your apt sources.list, and
> you'll n
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 05:41:57PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > # apt-get install gimp-nonfree
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> > gimp-nonfree
> > 0 packag
On Jul 09, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> If I had apt or dpkg giving me warnings anytime I selected a non-free
> package, I could easily maintain this state of affairs.
Remove non-free (and non-US/non-free) from your apt sources.list, and
you'll never install a non-free package again.
To do this: vi /
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> > I would also like for it to be easy for me to determine which non-free
> > packages are on my system. I'm no dpkg slouch, but I haven't figured
> > out an easy way (less than 10 minutes of awk scripting) to do it yet.
>
> In
Hi,
>>"Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>> I would also like for it to be easy for me to determine which non-free
>> packages are on my system. I'm no dpkg slouch, but I haven't figured
>> out an easy way (less than 10 minutes of awk scripti
Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> I would also like for it to be easy for me to determine which non-free
> packages are on my system. I'm no dpkg slouch, but I haven't figured
> out an easy way (less than 10 minutes of awk scripting) to do it yet.
Install vrms.
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the cho
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 11:02:13AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> That would greatly annoy me and involve hardcoding what "non-free" means
> into apt. I'm opposed to the latter for technical reasons, I'm apposed to
> the former for reasons thæt YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOULD AT ME FOR FIVE LINES
> TO TEL
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 05:41:57PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> # apt-get install gimp-nonfree
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> gimp-nonfree
> 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 51 not
> By making it very easy for a user who doesn't have rights to a package
> to use such software without informed consent about those rights, we're
> technically guilty of contributory infringement.
>
> No one has complained to us about this yet, but that doesn't make it
> right.
There was actuall
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After all, irritating your user base is nothing except good customer
> service. :p
>
> I could support such a thing if it were done *once*. Any more and
> you're getting to the area of nagware.
As a user, I would prefer if it happened every time. Wi
Choice is good. Information is good. Choice
is dependent on information.
(following bold added by me)
Raul Miller wrote:
Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Removing the non-free software from apt's source list, the mirror
network
> and other resources is rather a different qu
(Proposal is about a screenful down; sorry, I do this
stream-of-consciousness thing a lot...)
On Jul 09, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Ean wrote:
> > Isn't that more fun than removing a line that a determined user will just
> > put back in? It's certainly more irritating to users of non-free software.
>
Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> Removing the non-free software from apt's source list, the mirror network
> and other resources is rather a different question. Shipping apt with a
> non-free-free source list rather defeats its core purpose which is to
> make it easy for users to find the software they
Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Removing the non-free software from apt's source list, the mirror network
> and other resources is rather a different question. Shipping apt with a
> non-free-free source list rather defeats its core purpose which is to
> make it easy for users to fin
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:08:40PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind for the web pages. I
> would suggest having names such as "official.debian.org" and
> "free.debian.org" for new free server. I hope that these names will
> be memorable enough, tha
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:08:21PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Early in this discussion, I was told that most users would not edit
> the apt configuration file by hand. That seemed plausible--it is
> true for most other system configuration files.
>
> But today or yesterday someone told me t
Ean Schuessler wrote:
Fundamentally, some Debianers believe that
selecting Free software because you had no other choice is no moral
decision at all.
It takes time to think about these issues, and time to realize how
freedom affects your life. System installation can force users to
There is a setup script that the user can run, it
provides recommendations of sites and configuration formats that include
non-free and non-us.
Could you email me that script? I would like to see precisely what it
does, what it says to the user and what it asks the user to say.
Does
If you want to refer them to "gnu.debian.org" web
site (a better name than "debian.gnu.org" if we're going to do the
work), then that site should be sufficient, and can be constructed as
I previously outlined with minimal hassle (because it's 100%
transparent to our existing u
Which is why I said a couple of days ago that I thought you missed the
significance of apt.
I know that apt is significant, but I don't know precisely what
significance it has, and precisely how much. That depends on a lot of
details. I have only the fragmentary information which has com
20 matches
Mail list logo
