G.E.N.E.R.I.C.S at the best discount
High bills of meds costing you to much? From our wharehouse to your home.
With 8 of the top meds, we have the right one for you.
httP://fdddt.12wmeds.com/Gp/DefAUlt.asp?id=rm
if not interested:
HtTP://gyyej.impactcare4.com/er/Er.aSp?FoLDER=Gp
belveder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
aj@azure.humbug.org.au (Anthony Towns) writes:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> program
I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:
Removal of non-free
This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.ht
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Sof
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it? I
suggest that t
On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?
Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?
Many of us (myself included) don't like non-free but pragmatism
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract
> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.
I know I've been avoiding commenting on the
G.E.N.E.R.I.C.S at the best discount
High bills of meds costing you to much? From our wharehouse to your home.
With 8 of the top meds, we have the right one for you.
httP://fdddt.12wmeds.com/Gp/DefAUlt.asp?id=rm
if not interested:
HtTP://gyyej.impactcare4.com/er/Er.aSp?FoLDER=Gp
belveder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Towns) writes:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs tha
I now have two active GR proposals that have received sufficient
seconds:
Removal of non-free
This proposal was first introduced in its current form in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.ht
On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 15:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I propose that the Debian project resolve that:
>
> ==
> Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of
> programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Sof
On 2004-02-21 20:09:57 + Stephen Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I firmly believe that keeping non-free and contrib until such time as
ALL of
the needs of our users can be met from main is a good thing.
As you write it, this is an unreasonable demand: who judges it? I
suggest that there
On 2004-02-21 23:50:37 + Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I second this.
How can you? Is it a proposal or an amendment? Donkey or poultry?
Did you forget your GnuPG signature, or have I broken my email again?
Many of us (myself included) don't like non-free but pragmatism is
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:52:10PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Editorial amendments to the social contract
> I believe that both of these GRs can begin the SRP immediately. They
> were designed to be mutually independent so they can run in parallel.
I know I've been avoiding commenting on the
14 matches
Mail list logo
