Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
>
> Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
> indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find th
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> > The compro
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in
> section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for
> non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is "not a part of
> Debian".
Again,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:38:47PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > I suspect some of our users might not want to use packages from a
> > less trusted source. I would have concerns myself.
>
> Of course, and this was indeed one the
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then
> trimming it so that no one else can see the point either.
If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it.
> My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your
> ph
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > stream of unacceptable noise.
>
> Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
> Craig, or
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > > without clarification that
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
> grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me
> to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic
> spitefulness
> on this list.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > > I don' think it's a professional attitude if the RM has given up
> > > > > talking to the maintainer of xfree86. Please, Anthony, adjust your
> > > > > attitude, or ask someone else to be the RM.
> > > > Ah, what I love abo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so
> personal that you title threads with things like "Serious problems with
> Mr Troup" or "Why Anthony Towns is wrong". But you don't seem interested
> in doing anyt
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > > stream of unacceptable noise.
> > Sorr
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> > but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> > without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> > as b
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
> > > the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
> >
> > Yes -- this seems to
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
> > the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
>
> Yes -- this seems to be the problem with Craig.
The only thing that it takes for evil to flourish is
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In the case of [0], Enrico certainly doesn't seem to have been satisfied
> at the outcome and that frustration seems to be resulting in him
> expressing some outrage at communications issues on my behalf [4],
> and you seem to have be
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:42:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
> > need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
> > off women (and oth
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
> indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
> ie, to talk about real issues, not pedantic non-events -- unacceptable?
He can make whatever requests he wants,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > So I have a few questions for you:
> Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
> entering the DPL race?
No; there are a few reasons why
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
>
> Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
> indicates will stop him from swear
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> > stream of unacceptable noise.
>
> Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
> Craig, or
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and
> grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me
> to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic spitefulness
> on this list.
No,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop.
Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he
indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests --
ie, to talk about
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > > I don' think it's a professional attitude if the RM has given up
> > > > > talking to the maintainer of xfree86. Please, Anthony, adjust your
> > > > > attitude, or ask someone else to be the RM.
> > > > Ah, what I love abo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:29:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
> stream of unacceptable noise.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific, all that he has ever done to
Craig, or all that he has ever done for the project?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tell you what - you write YOUR words however you like according to YOUR
> standards, and i'll write my words according to mine.
That's funny, given that your unacceptable words were an effort to try
and tell people that they should stop talking about so
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.
Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.
Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
> > > the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
> >
> > Yes -- this seems to
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm trying to figure out if there's anything constructive I can say in
> > the context he's created, and I'm not coming up with any good ideas.
>
> Yes -- this seems to be the problem with Craig.
The only thing that it takes for evil to flourish is
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
> > have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
> > month after month.
>
> No matter how mu
On Thursday 11 March 2004 03:18, i wrote:
> Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
No longer, i am subscribed now.
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
> [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
I apologize, i propably should have ranked this positively.
Have a nice day, martin
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
> need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
> off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
> Craig that this is
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
> have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
> month after month.
No matter how much someone pisses you off here, it doesn't warrant the
kind of language you choose.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive. So who is it that fits
> your description?
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:01:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In the case of [0], Enrico certainly doesn't seem to have been satisfied
> at the outcome and that frustration seems to be resulting in him
> expressing some outrage at communications issues on my behalf [4],
> and you seem to have be
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:42:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
> > need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
> > off women (and oth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] C
Hello Debian-vote,
For the first time on the web, we are offering 4
V*I*A*G*R*A F*R*E*E!
http://as.doctorspill.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Yes, check out this limited time offer:
http://baseman.royaldrugs.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Super Vi-a-gra(Cial-is) is HERE:
http://www.cartmed.com/s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
> > even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
> > suggestion that it would be good
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > So I have a few questions for you:
> Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
> entering the DPL race?
No; there are a few reasons why
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
> a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
> even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
> suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up
> about this subject. that's it.
I guess it's
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, "Swears like a sailor" Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tell you what - you write YOUR words however you like according to YOUR
> standards, and i'll write my words according to mine.
That's funny, given that your unacceptable words were an effort to try
and tell people that they should stop talking about so
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has that
> anyone needs.
Oh, I figure they're just ignorant--and likely to be unaware of what
vrms would say on their own system.
Incidentally, so it was recently pointed out to me that I
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > similarly, it's impossible to enforce a "Further Discussion" option yet
> > it's there on the ballot.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
> > have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
> > month after month.
>
> No matter how mu
On Thursday 11 March 2004 03:18, i wrote:
> Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
No longer, i am subscribed now.
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
> [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion
I apologize, i propably should have ranked this positively.
Have a nice day, martin
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So, all those folks who were so sure (and I agree with you) that we
> need to do something about the tone, and about the way that it puts
> off women (and others too)--are you going to join me here and tell
> Craig that this is
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
> think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
> Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
>
> That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not
> have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for
> month after month.
No matter how much someone pisses you off here, it doesn't warrant the
kind of language you choose.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I have heard similar statements from other people who support the
> removal of non-free from the Debian archive. So who is it that fits
> your description?
I'm referring to the sub threads where people ask what non-free has t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list.
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed]
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free
[ ] C
Hello Debian-vote,
For the first time on the web, we are offering 4
V*I*A*G*R*A F*R*E*E!
http://as.doctorspill.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Yes, check out this limited time offer:
http://baseman.royaldrugs.com/gv/index.php?pid=eph3404
Super Vi-a-gra(Cial-is) is HERE:
http://www.cartmed.com/s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
> > even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
> > suggestion that it would be good
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't dec
> Branden writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
> > minded, bigoted group.
> >
> > Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
> > enough to be able to interact with
Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yet still its not short enough to already know your preference for
> a public flogging over any exercise involving self restraint.
Despite all that Branden has ever done, Craig Sanders just unleashed a
stream of unacceptable noise. If we want to make Debian
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves
> even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice
> suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up
> about this subject. that's it.
I guess it's
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it.
You first.
Fortunately, "Swears like a sailor" Sanders is not the most reasoned
of the keep-non-free supporters.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.
> It may not be good for them in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
> In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
> for] is the state of glibc:
>
Quoting Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:42:16PM +, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> > Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the
> > representative of Debian to the world
>
> Is that *really* true, and should it be?
>
Yes, it's true. Both Bdale and Martin have worke
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It's impossible to enforce a "STFU about it" option.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > similarly, it's impossible to enforce a "Further Discussion" option yet
> > it's there on the ballot.
>
>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:22:27AM +1030, Ron wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I've drunk to excess in biker pubs before, but I
> think the important part of what what Manoj was inferring was:
> Keep it in texas dude. (and if he wasn't then I am)
>
> That goes double for the 'baby kissing' bandwidth
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:40:49PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't dec
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > So I have a few questions for you:
>
> Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
> entering the DPL race?
>
> [snip - long list o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
> be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
> difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
> situation on its mer
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the no
> Branden writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:06:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed. For once I am ashamed to be a member of such a narrow
> > minded, bigoted group.
> >
> > Helen, please accept my apologies; we are not quite grown up
> > enough to be able to interact with
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> > If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> > abuse of power on someone's p
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
> built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
I have heard simila
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And i expect in future you to give back the same courtesy, and to
> distinguish from context the different meaning that are put in the word
> debian, be it the debian distribution, the debian project, the debian
> infrastructure, ..., instead of insisting
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
> ("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
After performing a vote from the ilisp developers, I've change the
license. ilisp is now DFSG-free.
> It may not be good for them in
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
> > Does somebody know what I'm talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
> In my opinion, the most serious issue [and not one I have a good solution
> for] is the state of glibc:
>
Quoting Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:42:16PM +, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> > Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the
> > representative of Debian to the world
>
> Is that *really* true, and should it be?
>
Yes, it's true. Both Bdale and Martin have worke
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:03:40PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:55:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > So I have a few questions for you:
>
> Anthony if you answer can we consider that as a signal you are finally
> entering the DPL race?
>
> [snip - long list o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:59:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the dewveloper has done something horrible, why would there
> be disagreement as to what to do about them (apart from perhaps a
> difference in degree)? I think we are far better off treating the
> situation on its mer
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, B
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the no
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:51:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In other words, do you perceive a concrete need for such process now?
> > If not, do you think we are facing an imminent or serious threat of
> > abuse of power on someone's p
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
I have spoken of both. The context has made it clear in each cas
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
You'd think that if everyone were supposed to know and agree to this that
there's be some kind of exp
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
>
> The compromise was: "non-free can be o
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> > knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> > designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> > involve changing a few others ju
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, for example, consider how --prefix= magically impacts what gets
> built.
Hrm; I guess I knew about that from the beginning because I had a role
in it, but you're right, that's an important bit of undocumented
magic.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has
> >long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are
> >themselves not happy with the compromise.
> >
> This is *not* up to you alone. That's why we have the voting
> thi
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [3] Building the toolchains (binutils, gcc, glibc) involves a lot of
> knowledge of largely undocumented features. [And those features aren't
> designed to be independent of each other -- changing one option might
> involve changing a few others just to a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Necessary for what purpose?
You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
necessary it is. I'm assuming that you have some sense of what that
word means for you, and that
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Necessary for what purpose?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:25:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there are lots of necessary things in
> non-free. It's the pro-non-free people who have been saying how
> necessary it is. I'
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [a] most of the people who advocate dumping non-free do not have a
> personal need for any of it, and
Vrms reports a number of packages on my systems; the ones that I use
("need") frequently are ilisp, mpg123, jdk1.1, scsh, and xanim.
I have heard simila
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> > when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> > two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 12:00:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, B
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again, we were not speaking the same language, i always believed that
> when you spoke about compromise, it was about a compromise between the
> two opposing opinions on the non-free issue.
I have spoken of both. The context has made it clear in each cas
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
