Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:45PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > In other situations, we might want to incorporate parts of the manual
> > into the source (for tooltips, help texts, usage examples, etc..). We
> > certainly couldn't do that with a GFD
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:10:56AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
> > > > people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
> >
> > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500,
Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:53:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Here's how people voted:
> > > Can any of you guys that recounted the results (yo
Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:53:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:23:02PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Here's how people voted:
> > > Can any of you guys that recounted the results (y
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> > packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> > repository for people to download. I think not everyone has t
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> > packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> > repository for people to download. I think not everyone has
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to replac
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Without regard to constitutionality, I believe there are technical reasons
> > why non-free should remain a little while longer. Netscape is the biggest
> > of them at the moment since currently Mozilla is not ready to repla
> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no"
> wins by 80%. It would mean that a brutal majority of the
> Debian developers care little about the politics of the
> Project. I would not find that result very amusing, that's for
> sure.
Oh great. A `our-camp-is-right-and-if-t
> No. There's nothing wrong if someone feels dissapointed if "no"
> wins by 80%. It would mean that a brutal majority of the
> Debian developers care little about the politics of the
> Project. I would not find that result very amusing, that's for
> sure.
Oh great. A `our-camp-is-right-and-if-
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > Nearly 3 months later, a question disturbs me.
> > When are we going to vote on this?!
>
> No vote, just rm.
$ man rm
NAME
rm - remove files or directories
-
remove the proposal?
remove non-free files?
I just assumed the proposal origin
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Jordi Mallach wrote:
> > Nearly 3 months later, a question disturbs me.
> > When are we going to vote on this?!
>
> No vote, just rm.
$ man rm
NAME
rm - remove files or directories
-
remove the proposal?
remove non-free files?
I just assumed the proposal origi
Adam Heath wrote:
> dpkg-awk 'section:.*non-free.*' -- package|sed -ne 's/\(..*\)/\1/p'
This fails to pick up libforms0.88 and any other package that doesn't
have the Section line. Not everyone uses:
dpkg-gencontrol -isp
Peter
Robert Woodcock wrote:
> Here's an idea:
>
> # apt-get install navigator-smotif-46
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> netscape-base-46 navigator-base-46
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> navig
I lost track of who said what...
> > > And perhaps, the README.Debian should be mandatory to
> > > contain a brief explanation why this package is considered
> > > non-free (often it is obvious, but often it is not,
> > > especially for those new to the world of free software)
>
> > I think this
15 matches
Mail list logo
