On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:16:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I believe Anthony Towns has said that he now believes his earlier release
> policy to be in error.
No. It was an error to try to set the release policy myself, rather than
tangling it up in the bureaucracy of getting a tech ctte ruling
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
> > > make the decision sufficiently clear t
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:25:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Three quarters of the developers interested enough to vote on the issue
> told me (and the rest of the project) what to do once; when I followed
> their instructions to the best of my ability, they told me -- fairly
> unanimously -- i
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:53:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>
>> It has been said (repeatedly, over and over) that the effects ought to
>> be that the release of sarge can proceed according to the timeline and
>> practices that were current befo
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway. Language has no effect on release timing. Release policies have
> an effect on release timing. The following release policies are possible:
>
> * All programs in main must be DFSG-free
> * All GPLed firmware in main must comply with th
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > The decision's delegated to the technical ctte; if you want to know
>> > which GRs will ensure they will make the decision you want you'll
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
> have expressed:
>
> * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
> post-sarge. But we want an exception for sarge.
>
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people
>> have expressed:
>>
>> * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be
>> post-sar
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> having a principle which is so hard to live up to that it requires a
> special exemption for the sake of convenience is pointless. either
> the principle is valid or it is not. there is no ethical middle
> ground which says the principle is valid but w
Dear developers,
To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the
developers could settle the issue by a GR.
Unfortunately, none of the proposa
Greetings,
Because there is some confusion over what the actual effects of the
various options in GR 2004_003 are, I have undertaken an analysis.
Choice 1 (Postpone until Sept 1), Choice 2 (Postpone until after
Sarge), and Choice 4 (revert to old wording), will have no effect on
release policy.
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
> but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I
> feel comfortable with.
Manoj's proposal does not propose to do this, but instead enacts
comprehensive gui
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:46:27AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Hypocrisy would be if I professed one set of values and then acted on
> another, and I don't do that.
That is *EXACTLY* what you are doing.
you are saying that non-dfsg docs/fonts/firmware/etc must not be permitted
in debia
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> and Choice 4 (revert to old wording), will have no effect on release policy.
> The Release Manager erroneously concluded that nonfree material could be
> included in a release [1].
actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct tha
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you are saying that non-dfsg docs/fonts/firmware/etc must not be permitted
> in debian, while at the same time insisting on an exception for mere
> convenience.
Except you have misunderstood my belief in the former. I'm saying
that our ultimate goal sh
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:44:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to
> > do,
>
> Yes... eventually. But it took a lot of asking.
no, he said right from day 1 that he had delegated the decision to the tech
ctte.
you (and som
On 2004-05-22 02:38:20 +0100 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that "software" did
not include
documentation, fonts, device firmware or other *DATA*.
Not at all. The inclusive one is the original and proper meaning, as
far as I can tell. It
17 matches
Mail list logo
