On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:21:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:57:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you've said that a few times but failed to actually provide any examples.
>
> I thought I had. I also thought they were obvious enough that
> you should spot them.
>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
> > support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
> > remove non-free from debi
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >From the data, we can see that:
> >
> > > * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
> > >use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the wo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> s
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Here is the output:
>
> Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
> xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00000
> xpdf-chinese-traditionalnon-free/text
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
> >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >>>[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> >>>a package into non-free has, in
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here
> are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> post corrections, the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
> using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
> What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
> offline ?
We
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please provide examples.
> > We're still missing those examples, please John.
> Those examples are t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> solve this following what the DDs really want to do.
By all means, let's vote on something already.
I'm against the i
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
>
> And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about
> non-free, not that we want to ammend
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> > decision is reached to remove non-free. Doing so would go a long way to
> > proving it is possib
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well as
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
> > introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
>
> Yep, but the pack
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt 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 p
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
>
> Why not ?
>
> Once we have the result of this, first it will put a stop to the whole
> speculation
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their
> > preferences appropriately?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
> > using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
> > What about all th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in no
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Here is the output:
> >
> > Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
> > xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 0
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> >
> > begin of draft Poll to be su
On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
I'm not sure what you mean by "error ratio". Can you explain?
The error rate is the prop
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
> > introduces. I don't think it's in the order of the S/N ratio, though.
>
> Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
> know this is n
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:34:45AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile
> > > amendment, so that people ca
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > > of very low quality in n
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
> > which are really about bugs in upstream software.
> >
> > I don't see what's so difficult here.
>
> You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as wha
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:26:44PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot think of a single
> > > situation in which that will actually resolve anything.
> >
> > Why not ?
> >
> > Once we
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:31:03AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Packages not distributed by Debian can take advantage of this
> > > utility too. They just need to add a "send-to" header to the
> > > control file /usr/share/bug/$package/control.
> >
> > A, nice, this would be fine for th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> non-free package to the Debian BTS. Debian does not distribute non-free
> anymore. Do yo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:08:59PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> > long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> > it was the only r
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:41:25PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> section. Clause 5 of the soc
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 08:43:11PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
>
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. Uploads to th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-09 14:36:58 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yep, but the package i maintain have 0 entries in popcon, while i
> >know this is not the real case. This means infinite error ratio, no ?
>
> I'm not sure what yo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
>
> So this is not really a concern.
It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
whole pro
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > > can say what wi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > irrelevant.
>
> Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
> fixes got in the package, not the i386 package, but the source package,
>
On 2004-01-09 16:44:34 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The error rate is the proportion misclassified, which cannot be
infinite
under any circumstances where there are some subjects. I'm also not
sure
how it applies here.
Ah, yes, that is the stuff taken in the other direction,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I wonder whether it would be possible/helpful if reportbug would get
> > modified so as to ask the user "You seemingly want to submit a bug for a
> > non-free package to
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > What package is that?
>
> ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
> i missed some, but at least some of those where in this category.
>From the raw popcon output:
Package
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Taken from the data you quoted :
>
> > PackageVote Old Rcnt Unknown
> > ocaml-book-en 0 0 019
> ocaml-boo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > whole project, if you take a bit wider look at it.
>
> Sure. If you are concerned by other pack
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:12AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
> >
> > What do you thinkg ? Something like :
>
> I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:54:16AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Why are you opposing this. Just for the chance to discuss this to death
> > another year or so ?
>
> No; for precisely the opposite reason. I want a vote now, and no po
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:25:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
> > > "non-free" on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
> > > non-free (any more
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, we have a situation where the #1 and #3 packages installed from
> > "non-free" on people's systems are not actually present in Debian's
> > non-free (any more). Also, no version of Java later than 1.1 is
> > present.
> yep, but
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:17:01AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
> > classified examples divided by the wrong o
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:02:28PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:54:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > As an Alpha user, the quality of a package on i386 is completely
> > > irrelevant.
> >
> > Stop trolling, sure i understand about porting, but this is so wrong. If
>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:57:27AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:36:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > We'd need somebody good enough at statistics to measure the error popcon
> > > introduces. I don't th
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > Can you please repost the proposal, and modifications, or at least links
> > to them?
>
> My post included both the Message-IDs and links to the messages in the
> archive. Is that not sufficient?
Ahh; my apologies. Looks like I ju
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> > there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here
> > are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (pl
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:17:50AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > What package is that?
> >
> > ocaml-docs, ocaml-book-fr, ocaml-book-en, unicorn, unicorn-source. maybe
> > i missed some, but at least some of those where in this cate
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The only way clearly say what will happen is to make it part of the
> > ballot. Your poll will *not* say what will happen, and nobody else here
> > can say what will happen either, because we do not know how a vote will
> > turn out.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:44:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:40:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Well, the error ratio is something like the correctly correctly
> classified examples divided by the wrong ones or soemthing such.
>
> I know my packages are used, let's say by
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:40:55PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But, as you've diligently endeavored to make clear with your replies to
> > my messages, my opinions are likely shared by no one else.
>
> I, for one, share them, a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:10:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Careful with that sort of language, or you're going to end up adopting
> certain disreputable positions I put forward on this list a couple of
> months ago...
I was oversimplifying, again.
Bad habit.
--
Raul
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:51:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > That you appear not to have found any of them persuasive means neither
> > that they weren't offered, nor that no one else found them compelling.
>
> Actually, John
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up.
> >
> > And it would be hypocrit. The real issu
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:56:42PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 19:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I confess I have to wonder how many people who are inclined to vote
> > in favor of retaining non-free do so to preserve our users' access to
> > software that isn't actua
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:57:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Eh? KDE's always been under the GPL, hasn't it? It was Qt that was the
> problem, wasn't it?
Yeah, I oversimplified.
> > A lot of that is because I'm rather limited in what else I can do.
>
> The absence of your key in the key
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, the packages i care about in non-free are arch: all (for docs), or
> > arch: x86 (for the unicorn driver obiously).
> >
> > So this is not really a concern.
>
> I
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:09:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:05:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sorry, "insincere ballot options" doesn't parse. Insincere voting
> > refers to the process of strategically ranking options on a ballot in a
> > way that does not cor
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:27:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:57:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > It may not be a concern for *you*. Yet it might be a concern for the
> > > whole project, if you tak
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:40:32PM -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.
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:13:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Which still doesn't make
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:03:39PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Yeah, but I've been largely offline for most of the past two years,
> so most of what I did was pretty ancient.
>
> Let's see... I documented dpkg-deb (and the file format), and helped
> design the semantics for dpkg. I've supported a
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:45:33PM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> Can a Debian user make a comment here?
>
> I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
> administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
> threads: there is a big point that every
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Maybe what needs to be done is draw a line *within* non-free,
> and eliminate some of the more objectionable material. For example,
> perhaps, we should stop distributing material which can't be distributed
> to all users.
I should cl
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:17:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> > administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
> > begin of draft Poll to be submitt
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:46:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Fix what's broke, don't fix what's not broke.
Not a useful apothegm when people disagree about what's "broke".
--
G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws
Debian GNU/Linux |of
> > And here I thought I was answering a specific question.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, you solicited examples, and then keep shooting down the ones being
> offered as unsatisfactory.
I did?
Ok, I just went back and read over this thread. A claim was
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:06:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:58:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:53:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I don't expect anyone to want to set up a non-free archive until a
> > > decision is reached to remo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So, let's start from my poll draft, and let's vote on it.
>
> What do you thinkg ? Something like :
I think that it's impossible to vote yes or no to a GR that contains 5
different, mutually exclusive, options.
Consider the below. H
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:57:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no
> voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what
> happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot
> options themselves ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:10:42 -0600,
John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:59:03PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Here is the output:
> > >
> > > Package Name
Can a Debian user make a comment here?
I am not a Debian developer, although I am a professional developer and
administrator. Having read most of this thread and some similar past
threads: there is a big point that everybody always seems to miss:
Debian is not 100% free software. Debian is
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:25:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I doubt anyone with a package in contrib wants to keep it there, no
> matter what their position on non-free is.
Permit me to correct your doubts.
Package: xtrs
Status: install ok installed
Priority: extra
Section: contrib/otherosfs
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Also, installing java stuff from third party sources is a pain. See for
> > > example the problem with mozilla-cvs and mozilla-snapshot, which you
> > > have to hand fix in the postinst. Also, there is no 1.4 .deb for powerpc
> > >
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:48:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:13:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Then wonder why no jabbering reactionaries are up in arms about non-free
> > not living up to its potential.
>
> Because there are other more important things to worry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free
> section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free
> section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free
> s
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:30:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:57:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
> > support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
> > remove non-free from debi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> solve this following what the DDs really want to do.
By all means, let's vote on something already.
I'm against the i
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:51:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >From the data, we can see that:
> >
> > > * The 5 most popular packages in non-free are acroread (18% regular
> > >use), unrar (14%), j2re1.4 (11%), and rar (
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:58:47PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 15:25:22 + Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 13:37, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-01-07 00:05:49 + Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> >>>[...] As Craig said, the act of putting
> >>>a package int
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Quality. Contrib and non-free long been the bastard son of the Debian
> > > quality process. Autobuilders do not build non-free, and thus packages
> >
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:49:05AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:15:59PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:59:10PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please provide examples.
> > We're still missing those examples, please John.
> Those examples are t
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:30:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:50:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt 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 p
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02:41PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes, let's have a non-binding poll on this subject, so that this
> > meanigless flamewars can stop, and we can actually work on a way to
> > solve this following what the DDs really wan
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:16:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Here is the output:
>
> Package NameSection Vote Old Rcnt Unkn Totl
> xpdf-chinese-simplified non-free/text 00000
> xpdf-chinese-traditionalnon-free/text
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:58:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ocaml did. It was in non-free when i picked it up in 98, and has after
> long discussion with upstream become free enough for main. I don't think
> it was the only reason for the licence change, but my contact with
> upstream and the wo
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But as you said, it doesn't really prove anything, only that the people
> using popularity contest don't really use these non-free packages much.
> What about all those who don't run popularity contest, or those who are
> offline ?
We
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:43:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You could mark it forwarded. We do the same thing with Debian BTS bugs
> > which are really about bugs in upstream software.
> >
> > I don't see what's so difficult here.
>
> You could do that. That's nowhere near as good as wha
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> been exceeded, in the (bit over) two weeks since the GR was proposed
> there haven't been enough seconds for it to be called to a vote. Here
> are the posts pertaining to the vote as I have followed them (please
> post corrections, the
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok, will you help me draft something, i am not really a good
> administrative writer, but was thinking about something like :
>
> begin of draft Poll to be submitted to vote
Why would we want something non-binding? I cannot
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:07:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:37:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not true at all. Even packages that are well-maintained can be
> > of very low quality in non-free, especially if you are not running on
> > i386. This is due in
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
