On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:09:44 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> > That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there
>> > for convenience
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
>> infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently
>> duplicated "somew
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
> You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before
> it is passed. If that is i
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:14:54 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>> Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
>> sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't
>> benefit free software;
> Support fo
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:15:32 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that
>> infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the
>> social contract, but I
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:53:09 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could you tell me about the plan for dealing with contrib and
>> non-free?
> The plan is for somebody else (ie, not Debian) to deal with them, if
> they
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still
>> vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot.
> How is this information u
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:09:04 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-02 18:47:50 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Has someone asked you to create [or re-create] non-free?
> You seemed to claim that supporters of this GR should do so before
> it is passed. If that is i
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:14:54 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
>> sucks up time and energy of maintainers on work that doesn't
>> benefit free soft
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:15:32 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2003-12-29 21:02:42 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If someone were to implement a decent alternative for that
>> infrastructure, I would be amenable to leaving that part out of the
>> social contract, but I
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 01:58:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
> >needs
> >to be changed?
> No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing "removing non-free
> from Debian" w
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide,
> freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or
> unable to provide their code freely to the public;
qmail is not DFSG-free,
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
> >already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
> >plain English. What's with the
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So... back to the point at hand: a "vote about non-free" won't answer
> > the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
> > address the issues people have about non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:11:47PM -0500, Anthony De
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
> > not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
That's the point of this vote, is
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
So... back to the point at hand: a "vote about non-free" won't answer
the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
address the issues people have about non-free.
Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide,
> freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or
> unable to provide their code freely to the public;
qmail is not DFSG-free,
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 01:58:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
> >needs
> >to be changed?
> No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing "removing non-fre
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century
government?
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained a
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
> >already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
> >plain English. What's with the
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
Here are some, with references:
"golden r
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:42:01AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see the point in doing this now. If my proposed resolution
> doesn't go through, then we can and should merely vote on it again
> every few years, for as long as there is reason to think that a
> significant body of develope
> > More generally, what do you think is the purpose of voting at all?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:48:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Answering the bloody question.
I believe you have the wrong idea.
Voting might not be a "perfect" way of arriving at the best decision.
But, still, the reason
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So... back to the point at hand: a "vote about non-free" won't answer
> > the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
> > address the issues people have about non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:11:47PM -0500, Anthony De
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:43:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I'm not really
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
> > not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
That's the point of this vote, is
> > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I'm not really interested in talking about that,
Ok, I see that.
But, what do you th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Why does there need to be anything else?
>
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale b
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote:
So... back to the point at hand: a "vote about non-free" won't answer
the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't
address the issues people have about non-free.
Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on the bal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I
already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in
plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century
government?
Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
not support non-free.
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
Here are some, with references:
"golden rule" (GN
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:42:01AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see the point in doing this now. If my proposed resolution
> doesn't go through, then we can and should merely vote on it again
> every few years, for as long as there is reason to think that a
> significant body of develope
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Why does there need to be anything else?
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've
> > been proposing.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:32:15
> > More generally, what do you think is the purpose of voting at all?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:48:30AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Answering the bloody question.
I believe you have the wrong idea.
Voting might not be a "perfect" way of arriving at the best decision.
But, still, the reason
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:43:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I'm not really
> > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I'm not really interested in talking about that,
Ok, I see that.
But, what do you th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
>
> PROPOSAL 1
>
> Whereas,
> the Debian
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Why does there need to be anything else?
>
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale b
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Why does there need to be anything else?
>
> I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've
> been proposing.
I thought it was obvious. 'Answeri
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Why does there need to be anything else?
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've
> > been proposing.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:32:15
> >>the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
> >>
> >>many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide,
> >>freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or
> >>unable to provide their code freely to the public;
> >
> > Two
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
>
> PROPOSAL 1
>
> Whereas,
> the Debian
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 07:34:17PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Why does there need to be anything else?
>
> I'm looking, perhaps in vain, for some rationale behind what you've
> been proposing.
I thought it was obvious. 'Answeri
On Jan 3, 2004, at 18:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will
still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3
years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for
their non-free packages.
So the palatibili
> >>the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
> >>
> >>many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide,
> >>freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or
> >>unable to provide their code freely to the public;
> >
> > Two
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
Than
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:43:28AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >To summarise: "i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
> >not
>
> To summarise: "I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
> with just sta
On Jan 3, 2004, at 18:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will
still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3
years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for
their non-free packages.
So the palatibility o
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
Thanks for
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
> PROPOSAL 1
> -
> Whereas,
> t
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:43:28AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >To summarise: "i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
> >not
>
> To summarise: "I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
> with just sta
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
> PROPOSAL 1
> -
> Whereas,
> t
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
Thanks for posting this. I think it's probably
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> > [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> > think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that
> > non-free is not
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
> requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
> more reluctant to remove non-free.
Thanks for posting this. I think it's probably
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> > [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> > think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that
> > non-free is not
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote:
Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun
implementation,
and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them.
That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to
Debian. Having them in main could encourage peopl
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
PROPOSAL 1
-
Whereas,
the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
ma
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that
> non-free is not a thing
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> > We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> > distribute the Debian system and all its components. We provide the
>
> This does not provide as strong a guarantee th
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote:
Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun
implementation,
and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them.
That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to
Debian. Having them in main could encourage people to wo
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
> > document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will support
> > people who create or use non-free works on Debian, but we will never
> > make the system
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm
requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people
more reluctant to remove non-free.
PROPOSAL 1
-
Whereas,
the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software;
many
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 01:10:10PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> > any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> > when you can spend all that on Debian?
>
> What i
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
> [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
> think non-free is a thing we should support and people who think that
> non-free is not a thing
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> > We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify, and
> > distribute the Debian system and all its components. We provide the
>
> This does not provide as strong a guarantee th
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
> > document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will support
> > people who create or use non-free works on Debian, but we will never
> > make the system
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 01:10:10PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> > any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> > when you can spend all that on Debian?
>
> What i
> > > I disagree with your choice of "significantly".
> On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns wrote:
> > That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working
> > on the BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any
> > experience that would back up any opinion you might have on
> > > I disagree with your choice of "significantly".
> On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working
> > on the BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any
> > experience that would back up any opinio
On Friday 02 January 2004 22:47, Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, I think such a tone degrades the cooperative, convivial
> > atmosphere that our Project Secretary said we should cultivate back in
> > November[1].
>
> I find it somewhat ironical that you bring up something like this, s
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
I disagree with your choice of "significantly".
That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the
BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that
would back up any opinion you might have on this? Any repea
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
needs
to be changed?
No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing "removing non-free
from Debian" when the proposal is to "cease active support" and
related things. I
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:14:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
> This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
> from it.
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing needs
to be changed?
Cheers,
aj
--
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:07:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> >our support for free software. [...]
> >none of them would be significantly simpler
> >or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
> I disagree with your choice
On Friday 02 January 2004 22:47, Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, I think such a tone degrades the cooperative, convivial
> > atmosphere that our Project Secretary said we should cultivate back in
> > November[1].
>
> I find it somewhat ironical that you bring up something like this, s
On 2004-01-03 11:46:23 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I disagree with your choice of "significantly".
That's nice. My comment is a result of my experience working on the
BTS, on testing and on the archive. Do you have any experience that
would back up any opinion you might have on
On 2004-01-03 11:09:12 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing
needs
to be changed?
No idea. As far as I know, you started discussing "removing non-free
from Debian" when the proposal is to "cease active support" and
re
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:07:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> >our support for free software. [...]
> >none of them would be significantly simpler
> >or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
> I disagree with your choice
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:14:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
> This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
> from it.
Well, then, why bother having this discussion at all, since nothing needs
to be changed?
Cheers,
aj
--
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 20:47, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
> > Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in main? I
> > have heard that the contrib Tomcat is a particular irrita
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
> Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that
> you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial
> is not the same as being non-free.)
Blackdown
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> when you can spend all that on Debian?
What if those DDs _want_ to spend time working on non-free (and
contrib)? I for o
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I
ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2
(it peers inside the library internals).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a d
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To summarise: "i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
not
To summarise: "I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make
it a pain i
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 20:47, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now.
> > Is that correct? If so, why aren't those things you named in main? I
> > have heard that the contrib Tomcat is a particular irrita
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
> Debian don't support the free software Java systems? (Assuming that
> you meant only the non-free JVMs are complete enough. Being commercial
> is not the same as being non-free.)
Blackdown
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are
actually
complete enough, however, or stable enough.
Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
Debian don't support the free
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when it could be done by non-DDs. Basically, the issue is why waste
> any DD hours and project facilities on maintaining non-Debian things
> when you can spend all that on Debian?
What if those DDs _want_ to spend time working on non-free (and
contrib)? I for o
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I
ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2
(it peers inside the library internals).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a d
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
from it.
Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
sucks up
time and energy of maintainers on
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. [...]
none of them would be significantly simpler
or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
I disagree with your choice of "signific
On 2004-01-03 03:05:58 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To summarise: "i don't want to non-free stuff on my systems, but i'm
not
To summarise: "I don't want this GR to pass, but I'm not satisfied
with just stating my opinion and discussing the issue - I want to make
it a pain in t
On 2004-01-03 03:27:09 + Ava Arachne Jarvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. However, only the commercial JVM's (Sun's and IBM's) are
actually
complete enough, however, or stable enough.
Is this situation likely to change if even free software projects like
Debian don't support the free sof
On 2004-01-03 02:16:15 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
One effect of removing non-free from Debian [...]
This is confusing. non-free is not in Debian, so it cannot be removed
from it.
Both of those are bad for Debian -- reimplementing infrastructure
sucks up
time and energy of m
On 2004-01-03 02:27:14 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
our support for free software. [...]
none of them would be significantly simpler
or even different if we didn't support non-free. [...]
I disagree with your choi
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> >On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
> >>mean losing much of the current Java support.
> >
> >I thought there were
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> >On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
> >>mean losing much of the current Java support.
> >
> >I thought there were
Hi Ava,
Ava Arachne Jarvis wrote:
[Dalibor Topic - Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:54:14 PM CST]
I remember when kaffe was really dragging its feet at the
beginning---kind of like our research project :) ---but things seem to
have really picked up.
A picture says more than words:
http://www.kaffe.org/
99 matches
Mail list logo
