Hi,
On 26/03/14 at 07:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:44:55PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >
> > Internally, we would need to adjust, but I'm quite sure that we would
> > manage. Actually, the lack of a DPL might make everybody feel more
> > enabled/empowered to
On 25/03/14 at 07:21 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> For opening RAR 3.0 archives, you can replace rar with unar these days.
Nice; if it really works with all RAR 3.0 archives, it might be worth
updating the unrar-free package description, which currently says:
Description-en: Unarchiver for .rar files
On 25/03/14 at 10:25 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:32:26AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> >On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 15:29 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> Because as long as we document it, it's very hard to claim that
> >> "non-free" is not part of Debian, when you co
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:32 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Nice; if it really works with all RAR 3.0 archives, it might be worth
> updating the unrar-free package description, which currently says:
>
> Description-en: Unarchiver for .rar files
> Unrar can extract files from .rar archives. Can't
On 27/03/14 at 20:38 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:32 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Nice; if it really works with all RAR 3.0 archives, it might be worth
> > updating the unrar-free package description, which currently says:
> >
> > Description-en: Unarchiver for .rar fi
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Something else that would be nice to have is a way to track the story
> behind each piece of non-free software. There are some cases where
> software ends up in non-free for rather obscure (but correct!) reasons.
> It would be great to have
[ Cc:-ing -policy ]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:10:05PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Now Debian policy (section 12.5) says it should be stored in
> debian/copyright.
Right. For reference here is the relevant snippet from §12.5:
Packages in the _contrib_ or _non-free_ archive areas should state in
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:58:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/03/14 at 20:38 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:32 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > > Nice; if it really works with all RAR 3.0 archives, it might be worth
> > > updating the unrar-free package descript
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 09:10:05PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> Now Debian policy (section 12.5) says it should be stored in
>> debian/copyright.
> Right. For reference here is the relevant snippet from §12.5:
> Packages in the _contrib_ or _non-free_ archive areas
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:23:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > Questions for my -policy friends: can I conclude from the above that the
> > Disclaimer field is to be used _only_ for contrib/non-free packages, and
> > only to explain the reason of their (transitive)
Hi Thomas,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:07:39PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Though, it is my understanding that those who are capable of doing the
> work are too busy. So what is your plan? Is using Debian money for
> sponsoring that work one of the things you would do? If yes, up to what
> amoun
Hi Paul,
Slightly re-arranging the question order, if that's ok.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:42:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Please share your thoughts on the SC and DFSG, in particular:
> Which items of the DFSG should apply to which types of works?
>
> How do you currently determine which fil
Hi Lucas,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:27:52PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> In your rebuttal, you are quite critical of the idea of a board.
> You raise concerns about the risk of creating a cabal, and about
> transparency and democratic accountability.
>
> I fully agree that those concerns are v
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:02:57PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:44:07PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > At the moment, in just SPI, we have > 100k USD awaiting being spent.
> > As an indication, that’s enough for a DebConf without any sponsors!
> > Our donations should
Hi Neil,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:44:24PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:02:57PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:44:07PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > > At the moment, in just SPI, we have > 100k USD awaiting being spent.
> > > As an indica
I know this has been raised in elections past, but any thoughts on the
current one-year DPL terms, and unlimited terms allowed? If thoughts
are geared toward change do you have any plans to actively try to
change the status quo?
I ask because it seems that a lot of energy is devoted to the electio
Le Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:48:48PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> Questions for my -policy friends: can I conclude from the above that the
> Disclaimer field is to be used _only_ for contrib/non-free packages, and
> only to explain the reason of their (transitive) non-free-ness? Or is
> t
17 matches
Mail list logo
