On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Bugs are things that break software, not arbitrary third-party
> specifications.
We consider violations for the FHS to be be bugs. Why is that different?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing
> >is evil.
>
> Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
> not do the wrong
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
BTW, maybe
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> > you pry our cold
At Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:12:54 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've been asked to re-write my amendment which proposes to
update the social contract, eliminating all independent issues
- -- the idea being that this will be less confusing to voters.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01636.html
So
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain completely f
> > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > only free software.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> You are missing my interpretation:
>
> [C] Debian is constituted by 100% Free Software. Software that is 100%
> Free Software, an
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > > it doesn't serve
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Bugs are things that break software, not arbitrary third-party
> specifications.
We consider violations for the FHS to be be bugs. Why is that different?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing
> >is evil.
>
> Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
BTW, maybe it
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > it doesn't serve us to say "You'll take our non-free section away when
> > you pry our cold
At Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:12:54 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:17:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:51:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:02:06PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I've been asked to re-write my amendment which proposes to
update the social contract, eliminating all independent issues
- -- the idea being that this will be less confusing to voters.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01636.html
So
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
>
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
>
> [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will
> remain completely f
> > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > only free software.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> You are missing my interpretation:
>
> [C] Debian is constituted by 100% Free Software. Software that is 100%
> Free Software, an
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:08:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth." Equally,
> > > it doesn't serve
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:51, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > > only free software.
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > You are missing my interpretation:
> >
> > [C] Debian is constituted by
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:10:55PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I am pointing out there is another interpretation - a third. You chose
> two interpretations, neither of which (necessarily) are "best". I'm not
> saying mine is either, only pointing out a third interpretation.
For my purposes, it
20 matches
Mail list logo
