Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote: > off of the ftp.debian.org (and mirror) system. Create a > userland.debian.org site (or something similar) which allows non-Debian > people to upload stuff in addition to Debian maintainers. There would, I'd prefer not to get into user-

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

Norbert Nemec wrote: > > Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think > it may serve better: > > Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving > those packages anywhere? There is a number of ways that could be done > - something in th

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 11:08:22AM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote: > Contrib shouldn't go in main for a very simple reason: all those > packages will not install because of missing dependencies. This is not true. (Would people please stop saying this!) Contrib contains software that has some depende

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:59:45PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote: [...] > That's the problem is was (unsuccessfully) trying to get at earlier. > Anything on a Debian site is a de facto part of Debian in the eyes of the > public, no matter what the Social Contract says. interesting point, how many users

Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 02:06:27PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote: > non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. Take non-free completely > off of the ftp.debian.org (and mirror) system. Create a [...] i'm not agree with this point, for 2 different reasons: 1) the quality of the package (maybe we r

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:10:00AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: [...] > 10% of the packages, ruffly 300. It also accounts for 10.6% of the > transfers from ftp.debian.org. It is about 5% of the total ftp.debian.org > by size (~ 3G/day) ok i have understood. Now technically make a new host will b

Re: README.Why_non-free (Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org )

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:12:32AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I lost track of who said what... Some here. I will probably only post once - I am not really intersted in this thread, but some issues have caught my eye. > Without giving legal advice, the package was put into non-free > for

Re: README.Why_non-free (Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org )

On Jun 24, Brian May wrote: > I think dpkg (or some other package) should provide some mechanism to > automatically list all non-free and/or contrib software installed on a > system. Especially for non-free software I may have installed ages ago, > and never used since... apt-get install vrms Ch

Re: deregulate/purge "non-free"; merge "contrib" & "main"

On Wednesday 23 June 1999, at 14 h 6, the keyboard of Will Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nonfree stuff isn't part of Debian(tm), and never can be. The > current scheme allows _only_ Debian developers to create packages for > non-free, which lends an aura of officialness. A (deserved

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Thursday 24 June 1999, at 11 h 8, the keyboard of Ionutz Borcoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > of the packages (main, non-free and contrib), but add these: > - as suggested, a file that briefly explain why package is in non-free I agree. Just try to see why TAO is non-free in

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 07:28:29AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 03:28:23PM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > Because [contrib is] useless without non-free. > > > > This is untrue. There are items in co

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 12:30:08AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote: > The social contract has as the very first item `Debian Will Remain 100% > Free Software'. So we need to do something to make once again clear > to everyone exactly what Debian is and show more clearly what we don't >

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 03:05:18PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 05:54:02PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > And the non-free appearing in the path is not a dead give away? > > > > > > > > > > that's those debs are not an part of the official distribution? N

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 01:26:03AM +0200, Andrea Fanfani wrote: > Note that in italy the biggest part of debian users uses the cd on > the magazine that are a mix of main/contrib/non-us/non-free divided > in different numbers of the magazine (monthly). Of course, the cdrom vendors will just recons

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Ionutz Borcoman wrote: > Norbert Nemec wrote: > > > > Guess, that idea already has been discussed and ruled out, but still I think > > it may serve better: > > > > Why not put some kind of a sign on every non-free package, instead of moving > > those packages anywhere? There

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Andrea Fanfani wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 09:10:00AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > [...] > > 10% of the packages, ruffly 300. It also accounts for 10.6% of the > > transfers from ftp.debian.org. It is about 5% of the total ftp.debian.org > > by size (~ 3G/day) > > ok

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

Debian uses a single transferable voting method, in which developers rank their preferences. Presumably your votes would be 1243 (in order of ballot position). That avoids the problem I was worried about. I'm sorry to have brought up an unnecessary tangent.

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

> That's a good message. Because as we all (or most at least) know, > free software is just plain better. [:=) I don't think that's an accurate statement, and I don't think even the FSF has ever said this. I think their point is that free software is morally 'better', and for

Re: Moving contrib and non-free of master.debian.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:43:16 -0600 (MDT), Richard Stallman wrote: >It's true that most readers would tend to think "better" means >"technically better." So it is better to be specific. Morally or technically better? :D OKOK, I couldn't res