On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 12:47:13AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Please give the components to get
> The components are typically something like: main contrib non-free
>
> Components [main contrib non-free]:
>
> This is a form of the question "do you want to consider
> non-free
I think this is a fair way of doing things. The script could ask for
sections to be included, defaulting to main and possibly crontrib?
Since most contrib packages depend on non-free, the most useful thing
is to list contrib only if non-free is listed.
Or perhaps apt could find all the co
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 12:47:13AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is a form of the question "do you want to consider
> non-free packages" that I would like to avoid asking.
>
> Could we please remove this question from the default version of apt
> that is in `main'?
>
> Perhaps this questi
We don't have the resources for market research or formal usability
testing, so its a judgement call. It's true that if you want a mirror
site, you need to edit the file.
I think the long term goal it to automate it somewhat more than that.
The idea, IIRC, is to have a user sel
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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:22:45AM -0400, you wrote:
> It has a direct effect on what happens when people use FTP as the
> interface to access the packages. That isn't the only interface, but
> it is one of them (or at least it was in the past).
>
> Are we having a misunderstanding about somethin
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:22:45AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It's true that the GNU Project could set up its own Debian web site
> with a modified version of the web pages. I don't want to do that,
> for a few reasons:
[snip]
> * It would be less effective, since every time we say "We recom
Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that it is far more valuable if we present the oppurtunities
> to use non-free software to our users, but are certain to embed a
> message which represents our views while doing so. For instance, if
> the website package search system could of
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:22:45AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> That is part of the issue: I would like to be able to refer people to
> an official Debian web site, without thus referring people to the
> non-free packages. This is not the whole of the issue because the web
> is not the only in
On Jul 08, Richard Stallman wrote:
> What I understand you want is a page, or set of pages, that just talk
> about the "main" section and don't link to anywhere that talks about
> contrib or non-free.
>
> That is part of the issue: I would like to be able to refer people to
> an offici
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Maybe the situation is different with apt. I have very little
> information about apt, little more than has appeared in the recent
> discussion. Is there a a good source of information on how
> apt interacts with the user--on what questions it asks?
My understanding was that the archive split proposal only affects the
FTP and HTTP services for downloading packages. As such, it does
nothing to promote your goal of providing an interface to only the
free packages (it only changes the URLs of the non-free ones).
It has a direct
What I understand you want is a page, or set of pages, that just talk
about the "main" section and don't link to anywhere that talks about
contrib or non-free.
That is part of the issue: I would like to be able to refer people to
an official Debian web site, without thus referring peop
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:08:05AM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jul 05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I have asked Debian to provide A main server that holds only the free
> > software. This doesn't mean removing the non-free packages from ALL
> > the main Debian servers, only from ONE or some
On Jul 05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I have asked Debian to provide A main server that holds only the free
> software. This doesn't mean removing the non-free packages from ALL
> the main Debian servers, only from ONE or some of them.
>
> I have asked for the web pages to be separated, so that we
26 matches
Mail list logo
