I just want to say that I am deeply dismayed by the turn events
have been taking.
I have a lot of respect for both A.J. and Manoj.
But I don't see a reasonable basis for this disagreement -- this
feels more like venting under high pressure (mostly the Etch
release, I think).
In that context, if
On 10/7/06, Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday,
Fortunately, vote.debian.org provides the associated dates.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't understand how this proposal answers the question.
>
> One answer implied by your proposal: "Dunc-tank is
> grounds for removing Debian&#x
On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anthony Towns [wrote]:
A question that has been raised is whether the
organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Debian when
the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer
to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether
On 9/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
> wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
> consequently what form t
A couple weeks ago, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My rough summary:
- (almost) everybody agrees that non-free drivers don't belong in main;
- (almost) everybody agrees that sourceless firmware at least needs to be
distributable before any kind of support can be considered;
- most people a
On 9/21/06, I wrote:
Personally, I'd say that if the situation is so ambiguous ...
Note that nothing I said here in any way overrides the procedures
the Secretary posted to dda -- I should have read that announcement
before posting.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
flame^Wdiscussions that follow?
On 9/8/06, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 05:08:28PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:42:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Perhaps we should start addressing the CD distributor problem (perhaps
> > tagging CD distri
On 9/6/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is an absolute ranking in Debian, that *first* we must provide
> 100% free software, and *second* we do whatever we can to help our
> users consistent with the first.
This is just
On 9/6/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suggesting the reverse would be a massive change of course for Debian
as a whole.
Would this massive change of course be a "suggestion"?
Or would it be something that actually exists?
If it's a suggestion, I'm not sure your assertion i
Perhaps, before we spend too many more years on trying to solve this
problem, we should agree on what "this problem" is?
One issue here is that we are trying to make a statement about what
direction we are heading. As M.J.Ray states:
The GPL is far closer to 100% free than a source-withheld
What strikes me as ironic, with these proposals, is that we ran into
something like this problem back in the 90s, back during the initial
adoption of the DFSG, and we had to solve that problem then:
we created the non-free and contrib sections.
For some reason, these sections are no longer seen a
On 4/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs
> > which does not exist.
>
> My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted
>
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
> > > repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unc
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > I was not convinced by this "rebuttal".
>
> Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
> repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
> annoyed
On 4/10/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On 4/7/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> > > prohibit all copy-control measures, as
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
> question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
Power switches can be used as copy control measures.
If copies
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Put more bluntly: the constitution does not require that the text
> > be editted for 3:1 supermajority requirement cases.
>
> Well, I am actually inhabiting the real world rather than the Debian
> parallel universe!
I'd appreciate it if you limited yourself t
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Majority Requirement
> Amendment B requires a 3:1 majority, since it require
> modifications to the Social contract, or the DFSG, both
> foundation documents.
>
[On 2/27/06, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the way these choices are proposed to you is misleading, I have
> to sent this specifying message to you all.
Without passing judgement, I'll note that a statement like this demands
well stated proof.
[...eliding background material..
On 2/14/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
> mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
> The p
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
> the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
> months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you're begging the qu
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
> supermajority.
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says "we have never received any spam".
On 2/11/06, I wrote:
> Casting a discussion about when the voting should begin in terms of
> changing the minimum discussion period seems misleading.
P.S. I also think that the minimum discussion period is the minimum
discussion period for a resolution or an amendment.
P.P.S. I also think the Sec
On 2/11/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the minimum discussion
> period of 2 weeks for this vote by up to one week; given the discussion
The minimum discussion period is a lower bound on the time for the
discussion. It's not an upper bound.
Casting a di
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
> I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
> write any code for it.
I don't know what
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance wi
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
> constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
> ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
> in a sense, by continuing to leave bu
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
> > as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
> > ge
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?
The constitution says:
"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
I think that's pretty clea
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
>
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > t
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.
This comment seems insincere.
If the GR is adopted by Debian, ther
On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
> a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
> or the social contract?
I think it's clear that the DFSG would have to be modified.
If nothing
> > I wouldn't wait longer than a week after your initial post
> > to pose such surrogate answers.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:57:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I won't do this. I'll do it just before the end of the discussion
> period instead of just after, if that's a new rule for no
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:11:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So, rather than beat a dead horse, since I intend to ask the same
> question (or much the same question) next year, what should I do
> differently?
Ideally, you should ask your question(s) at the begining
of the campaigning p
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:27:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> way. If candidates felt that by ignoring my question they wouldn't
> need to explain their records in detail, they were incorrect.
Between Feb 6 and Mar 19, you sent 74 messages to debian-vote, around
half a megabyte of text.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:31:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Thanks for your clarity. This does not, I would notice, say anything
> about non-candidates.
What are you trying to accomplish here?
(That's a rhetorical question. If you do choose to answer it, please take
some time and ans
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:26:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> My question is: when there is a technical issue, but one developer
> refuses to discuss it with tech-ctte or anyone else, can tech-ctte get
> involved?
Yes.
> It does, but I recall in the past being told that tech-ctte doesn
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What work?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I have in mind, for example, the ifupdown script. The maintainer has
> not made a maintainer upload for years, and so maintenance of the
> packa
> > How can the tech-ctte override a developer by not acting?
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> No, the question is whether a developer (by never acting) can avoid
> tech-ctte review of his work.
What work?
A developer who never acts would have no work to rev
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's a difference between a topic as a whole, and a sub-thread which
> > does not appear to be going anywhere useful.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:09:07AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sure. I have asked the questions on-top
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole
> > debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray
> > indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so
> >
[Note: I originally posted this to another list -- thinking this whole
debian-women thread was off topic for debian-vote. M.J. Ray
indicated only that he thinks debian-vote is the appropriate list, so
I'm reposting it here, with minor edits.]
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
> Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > [...] As there's is absolutely no seggregation in the debian-women
> > environment, men can benefit, and I'm sure *do* benefit, from this
> > wellcoming climate too.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:52:50PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Is a bus with a whites-only
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:30:07AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> No, I think you see it but you disagree whether the directory
> of women or the current list charter is discriminating on the
> basis of sex, and the severity or remedies of past incidents.
There's pages in the mail archives where only peop
To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
> This is why I suspect ftpmaster is a particular instance of some
> more general problem. At the moment, is there a constititional
> loophole that one can avoid tech-ctte overruling one (the only
> time complaints are mentioned) by never acting?
I'm having trouble
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> You're jumping through a lot of hoops to get to somewhere which is a bit
> like multiarch, but not quite. And you'll end up with something less
> capable, more ugly and a lot more work to support properly when
> upgrading to multia
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 07:00:58AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Is this purely because of linking problems with shared libraries, or is
> > there some other kind of need to support two diferent instances of the
> > same application?
>
> Its a problem with avoiding archive bloat through b
> > Is it just me or are these two paragraphs contradictory?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 04:28:32AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Yes, its just you. Multiarch will not be an issue for sid for a long
> time to come. If you want it work on it but it just confuses in the
> GR.
Why?
Is this compl
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:19:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Now there is a *different* question: should the current amd64 be in
> sid? I can see no reason why not, but then, I wonder why you all
> didn't get it in sid *long* ago. We put hurd-i386 in sid almost from
> the very first da
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
> > > even with Oracle.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 04:51:05PM -0400, Stephen Frost
> >> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
> >> > dpkg.
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
> >>
> | It's fairly simple for the port to be built to support both 32 and 64
> | bit LSB apps, and still allow for migration to multiarch.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:45:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> As others have said -- it's not easy to support both 32 and 64 bit. If
> you want to do that p
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 11:32:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Do you have an example of this case? I havn't heard of one yet, not
> even with Oracle.
K
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:28:06PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> mount --bind / /chroot/i366/chroot/amd64
I may be wrong, but I think that means VFS is going to have to manage
memory as if there are two independent copies of the amd64 stuff.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
> > You could install a biarch glibc which supports both 32 and 64 bit
> > dpkg.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:20:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Which would be a completly new glibc package adding extra bloat to the
> already streesed mirrors.
We're talking about something several orders
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:15:47AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> And get every package in the archive changed and updated for it ..
This (every package changed) doesn't have to happen until multiarch
is ready.
> > [Before you explained about multiarch, my only objection was the lack
> > of 32 bit
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:43:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> No. There never will be a biarch amd64 unless you pick up the pices
> and make one.
My concern is that it be possible for me to pick up the pieces and
make one.
> >> > [*] amd64 binaries can't be built from the sources in mai
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:53:02AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Last time I checked [two days ago], the trivial change to dpkg to support
> | amd64 hadn't happened. I think making sure that the debian package tools
> | work right for the architecture should be considered pre-requisites for
>
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:31:39AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> apt-get install dchroot cdebootstrap
>
> read FAQ
I've already raised this in another message, but how do I make 32 bit
userland able to use 64 bit programs?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
> have lib64 -> lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
> misbuilds. In effect you have to touch and fix all 2000+ library
> packages. Ther
> > If you don't provide a dual 32/64 bit amd64, your transition strategy
> > is going to be "install it on a different partition" or "backup, wipe
> > and reinstall".
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> That is the plan and the current implementation. As such p
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The only thing special for amd64 is that at some point the /lib64 ->
> /lib link might (or might not) be turned back into a real
> directoy. But that can/will only happen if it can happen silently
> without disturbance.
Which
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:45:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> sarge isn't supported/released, therefore this is not an issue when
> discussing if amd64 should be released with sarge.
You've confused the configuration of my machine with the issues
I'm discussing.
> > That's not my concern. I c
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:22:01PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I fail to understand how you still don't get it. multiarch *is*
> 64/32bit userland. Is there something you don't understand about that?
What I really want is LSB compliant 64 bit user land and LSB compliant
32 bit userland.
--
R
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:09:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Those funcs may be available through ia32-libs... I was actually
> wondering more about specific programs.
The no-cost linux downloads from kx.com and jsoftware.com are the ones
I'm most concerned about (in that order).
--
Raul
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > This isn't official or anything, but I think that /lib and /lib64 being
> > symlinks are perfectly adequate. As long as they're not symlinks to
> > the same place.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:50:22PM -0400, Stephen
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:38:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Apparently you have woody/i386 (our stable arch) running on an amd64 box
> today and are concerned about an upgrade path to amd64 in sarge.
Actually, it's sarge.
> You're right, there isn't one. The answer is very simple- wait for
> > > It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for
> > > those that need them. Many of us don't.
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:36:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't know what you mean here. Is "It" amd64 or cedeg
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:45:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If so, which part of "I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which
> > is something other distributions already offer." or "That's not vapor"
> > are you having problems with?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:25:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Well, there aren't any 32bit apps in Debian, so it'd have to be
> something you got from somewhere else.
Does this mean you've a valgrind package for amd64?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
> > > Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better?
> >
> > It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 06:15:23PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Uh, nope, wrong... We're going to be moving to multiarch on all archs,
> so this just is
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:56:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The Debian amd64 port does support some 32 bit binaries through the use
> of ia32-libs.
Ok, I was under the impression that it did not.
I'll try to install it this weekend.
> I'm very curious as to what, specifically, *you* need.
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:43:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which is something other
> > distributions already offer.
> >
> > That's not vapor.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:38:28PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn't have
> 32bit libraries in /lib. Actually, th
> > It is an assumption. It's based on some simple observations
> > on how the marketplace has treated various 64 bit
> > architectures.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Right, my observation is from talking with real people who really
> bought amd64 systems and
> > If we release an amd64 in sarge, we're committing to supporting it.
> > If the current port paints us into a corner, that's a good reason to
> > not start supporting it yet.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:28:57PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Correct. However, that does not apply to putting i
> > Those are two reasons.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
> > cedega (forinstance).
> >
> > More generally, by not providing 32 bit support, we're reducing the
> > bang/buck ratio.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:18:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro
> > Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
> > cedega (forinstance).
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:16:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for
> those that need them. Many of us don't.
I don't know wha
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The most likely reason someone would pick the AMD64 architecture over
> > the PowerPC architecture is that AMD64 can natively run I386 binaries.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:33:23AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> That's quite an a
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:04:54PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> People choose ix86 (or amd64) over PowerPC because
> a) bang/buck ratio.
> b) runs windows (games.)
Those are two reasons.
Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
cedega (forinstance).
More gene
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> To become LSB compliant would involve changing half the packages in
> Debian to achieve a result to many AMD64 developers consider inelegant;
> furthermore, a multiarch design is being created that would allow
> us to install Linux binar
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance
> (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space
> (which will be saved using partial mirroring).
Is this a claim that all of the am
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:50:13PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On a sidenote, I might well vote for a GR that directs the ftpmasters to
> > add the amd64 architecture to sid with all achieveable speed as a technical
> > decision overridding the (apparently de-facto) decision of the ftpmasters,
> > It's probably worth noting that the dpkg I downloaded as of 5 minutes ago
> > still doesn't support the amd64 architecture. This is a trivial patch,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:50:29AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I haven't uploaded one that does yet.
Thanks, that's somewhat informativ
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:07:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In my eyes, voting on technical issues is still better than no
> explicit decision at all. Both options are horrible, but explicit
> decisions are still better than implicit ones, no matter how they are
> made.
It's probably worth
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:03:47AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to
> follow instead.
I think there are several problems that need to be solved.
The big one is that amd64 isn't up on our main site at all. This
obviously need to get fi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will
>include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted
>at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ;
I think this is the wrong way to appro
> > He was right that time.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> No, he wasn't. An ad hominem argument appeals to non-rational things,
> whereas Hamish pointed out two facts: that Andrew started two general
> resolutions and that both of them were rather divisive.
I beli
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:25:28AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > [You have quite neatly just demonstrated what "argumentum ad hominem"
> > actually is, though].
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:05:08PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Do you have that phrase on a macro key yet?
He was right that t
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Ah, so suddenly you're not allowed to discuss issues in case you cause
> anybody to change their mind. That really is what Manoj has been
> complaining about.
No.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> > out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> > interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> > the Highway".
On Thu, Jun 24,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
> interpretation of the original SC.
Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
> | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> This pretty much pleads agains proposal E.
The constitution is long. Proposal E is not long.
> Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of pr
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the
> release manager somewhere regarding this vote?
The release manager has said that he feels making release policy
without the involvement of the rest of the pr
1 - 100 of 1746 matches
Mail list logo
