On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:50 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> While this is better than your previous proposal, I would still
>> vote it below the default option if it were on a ballot.
> How is this information u
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:53:09 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could you tell me about the plan for dealing with contrib and
>> non-free?
> The plan is for somebody else (ie, not Debian) to deal with them, if
> they
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:09:44 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:29:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> > That is somewhat uncomfortable; and besides, non-free is there
>> > for convenience
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:09:09 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2004-01-02 10:33:23 + Emmanuel Charpentier
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because I somehow doubt that the current technical and social
>> infrastructures behind Debian "non-free" can be currently
>> duplicated "somew
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
>> > document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will
>> > support peopl
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:34:17 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
>> [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
>> think non-fr
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:45:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
> >not willing to solve their problems.
>
> Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to s
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
>
> I'm not really intere
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > >> http://www.apt-get.org/
> > >
> > > What about BTS?
> >
> > Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
> > now.
>
> Gnome is in main.
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point, it's probably worth pointing out
that gnome is an effort ma
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
the resolution but disagree with the rationale.
Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future.
I encourage anyone who
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> >That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
> >stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
> No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free softw
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
> there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
> Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, but as a useful tool in a
> world that is not yet all
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Ah... in the context of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
> >> > doc
> > That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
> > stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
> on its servers.
>
> Anyone, Developer
A few moments ago, I wrote:
> Debian is not the FSF. We support our users who develop and run non-free
> software. Your proposal did change the social contract in that fashion.
How embarassing, I left out the word "not".
I had meant to say:
Your proposal did not change the social contract i
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of
> whatever actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll --
> and even build upon the possible directions the project could go
> while we are asking for p
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> anything I'd rather do than keep non-free]".
That's probably because you've ignored all of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > anything I'd rather do
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-04 08:46]:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Ah... in the context of that po
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > > anything I'd
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:59:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
> >resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
> >the resolution but disagree with the r
> Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
> support non
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > anything I'd rather do
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > > anything I'd
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated
packages you have mut.
On the other h
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
> (although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
> functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
> (mozilla, konque
> Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
> to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:14:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > > people who would
> > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
> > recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to make
> some. Nobody did.
I have not
Clint Adams wrote:
> > Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> > our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> > mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> > mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exi
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
> to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
> prompted to enable the
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prom
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
> > > recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You haven't made any proposa
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:52:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Exactly what I said. Anything that doesn't need to be voted on is a
> proposal to maintain the status quo, no matter how many words you use
> to say it.
Um... not really.
But, ok, since you seem to want to talk purely about the de
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
>
> Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
You won't find an example which fits perfe
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Isn't "months" slow enough already?
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free package
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands dirt
FUD
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is --
> what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_
> this is worth doing.
[snip]
> Note that many of the packages in non-free include their source
> code. Indeed, many of the packages in non-free are cons
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my al
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> > anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> > "I want to drop non
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> "I want to drop non-free".
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:19:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
> > non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping
> > non-free seems to
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
> > there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
> > Debian, not as a pedantic
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004, Mark Brown wrote:
> I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to
> spin non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over
> dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly
> vanish.
There's nothing in these proposals that would
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:48:01AM -0500, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is --
> > what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_
> > this is worth doing.
> To me, it's worth doing because of your last sentence. We (t
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:48:34 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wr
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:10:59 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of whatever
>> actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll -- and even
>> build up
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:12 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not
>> > > [can't] recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 0
> We made a promise to users; and even called it a
> ``contract''. Now we no longer want to keep that promise, so are we
> going to just leave the users in the lurch, with no transition plan,
> no support going forward? For people whoi seem to think that
> distributing non-DFSG free soft
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:23 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
>> > and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have
>> > said anything a
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote:
and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a
mozilla based browser.
... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)?
and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
>> > document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will
>> > support peopl
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:34:17 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 11:29:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> So far, the proposals have gotten as far as "Deals with a problem".
>> [In the sense that we have a conflict of opinion between people who
>> think non-fr
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:28:32AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 09:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok. How about, instead, we talk about the reasons for this change:
> > what problems it solves, what it makes better, why it's a good idea?
>
> I'm not really intere
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:45:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-01 15:10:32 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But please don't demand other people avoid non-free software if you're
> >not willing to solve their problems.
>
> Are the people using the Debian infrastructure to s
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:45:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > >> http://www.apt-get.org/
> > >
> > > What about BTS?
> >
> > Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
> > now.
>
> Gnome is in main.
I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
Ah... in the context of that point, it's probably worth pointing out
that gnome is an effort ma
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people
to
not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
the resolution but disagree with the rationale.
Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future.
I encourage anyone who wan
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
> there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
> Debian, not as a pedantically pure toy, but as a useful tool in a
> world that is not yet all
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:46:08AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Ah... in the context of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> >That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
> >stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
> No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free softw
> > That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
> > stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:49:21AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software
> on its servers.
>
> Anyone, Developer
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
> >> > doc
A few moments ago, I wrote:
> Debian is not the FSF. We support our users who develop and run non-free
> software. Your proposal did change the social contract in that fashion.
How embarassing, I left out the word "not".
I had meant to say:
Your proposal did not change the social contract i
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:09:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Me; I would like to have a better handle on the reults of
> whatever actions are the logical conclusion of this opinion poll --
> and even build upon the possible directions the project could go
> while we are asking for p
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> anything I'd rather do than keep non-free]".
That's probably because you've ignored all of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > anything I'd rather do
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-04 08:46]:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I guess the point was that GNOME managed to use debbugs for them, so why
> > shouldn't the prospective non-free-.debs-project do that, too?
>
> Ah... in the context of that po
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
> (although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
> functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
> (mozilla, konque
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > anything I'd rather do
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:59:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of
> >resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with
> >the resolution but disagree with the r
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > > anything I'd
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
On the one hand, it's much more cohesive: instead of dozens of unrelated
packages you have mut.
On the other h
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > people who would prefer to do something else [but I can't think of
> > > anything I'd
> Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time
> to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
It's nonfree.org, without the hyphen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exist whether we
> support non
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:14:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:24:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > All I have seen is vague handwaving along the lines of "There may be
> > > > people who would
> > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
> > recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to make
> some. Nobody did.
I have not
Clint Adams wrote:
> > Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> > our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> > mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> > mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exi
Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
more progressively?
I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
prom
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free packages are installed. The results would be sent
> to a Debian server for statistics gathering. The user would be
> prompted to enable the
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not [can't]
> > > recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You haven't made any proposa
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:52:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Exactly what I said. Anything that doesn't need to be voted on is a
> proposal to maintain the status quo, no matter how many words you use
> to say it.
Um... not really.
But, ok, since you seem to want to talk purely about the de
FUD
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Isn't "months" slow enough already?
> I would propose the next release include a package that periodically
> checks what non-free package
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:51:07PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Mutt uses debbugs, and isn't a project of the magnitude of GNOME.
>
> Which still doesn't make it comparable to non-free.
You won't find an example which fits perfe
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out
> more progressively?
Nobody did this until now. Why should somebody do it now? Those who'd
like to see non-free go probably don't want to 'get their hands dirt
> The question isn't _what_ it's about, but what the point of it is --
> what the goal is, what the achievement will be, what the aim is, _why_
> this is worth doing.
[snip]
> Note that many of the packages in non-free include their source
> code. Indeed, many of the packages in non-free are cons
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> One thing that we do learn from popularity-contest is that
> popularity-contest doesn't work. The sample size is too small.
That's why we've made popularity-contest be installed by default for
sarge. Of course the user still has to choose whether or not to turn it
on.
--
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> "I want to drop non-free".
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004, Mark Brown wrote:
> I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to
> spin non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over
> dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly
> vanish.
There's nothing in these proposals that would
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote:
I think there's room for something along the lines of "I want to spin
non-free off as a separate project". Much of the concern over dropping
non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish.
Those people may want to take a look at my altern
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said
> > anything appreciably more meaningful than "I want to keep non-free" or
> > "I want to drop non
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:48:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I see non-free as an area where we put in software for which
> > there is not yet a free replacement, so that our usaers can use
> > Debian, not as a pedantic
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
