Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Also, people in the NM queue that have to agree to the Social Contract
> and the DFSG, might be interested in knowing why these documents have
> the shape they have before actually agreeing to them.
Once they leave NM-mode and enter DD-mode they can read the archive
di
Frank Küster wrote:
> > * Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-05 18:48]:
> >> I also asked the DPL a question about backups of the development
> >> machines (after the CVS corruption last year) and never got any answer.
> >
> > FWIW, there is a dedicated backup server now. I don't know any
>
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
> > packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
> > regular basis, they normally are not release
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> almost 3 monthes to have an AM
> 2 days to pass T&S and P&P
> 5 days more because of a mail of mine, stuck on an SMTP
> exactly 8 monthes (WTF !?!?!) to have then my account created.
Did you notice that things have changed a bit since Joerg is acting
as pre-DAM?
Regards,
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: XX
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request to be approved as FTP-Master
I hereby request to be approved a
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > which is to change the queue structure so that uploads don't enter
> > > proposed-updates until approved by the SRM.
> > I'm wondering why you don't take the more obvious step: add the SRM as
> > an ftp-master for specifically updating stable.
>
> I was made an ftp-mas
Anthony Towns wrote:
> *sigh*
Full ack.
> > For the record:
> > Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
> > Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
> > Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22 about
> > modif
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
> > I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
> > build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
> > make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
> > release 3.1r1?)
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
> > > the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
> > > empty
> > > to start with the new system (probably because once a
Marc Haber wrote:
> > > and that you seem to want to
> > > build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
> > > make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
> > > release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
> >
> > The dependency is the other way -- that chang
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be "We
> > didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year" and
> > justification for that seems to be "I'll be in ch
Hi,
I'd like to ask some questions to the prospecitve project leaders:
1. Which are Debians top five strengths in your opinion?
2. Where do you identify Debians top five problems?
3. Do you plan to do anything to change the public recognition that
Debian suffers from severe release problems
Martin Schulze wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
> From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: XX
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Request to be app
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Now my question:
> >
> > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> > openly?
> >
> > 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
> >
> > 3.) Do yo
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-07 20:09:11]:
> > > When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
> > > find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
> > > powers of delegation to restructure the team from the out
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> >
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.08.0853 +0100]:
> > This has been rejected by James Troup.
>
> What was the reason?
No reason given.
Regards,
Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
Anthony Towns wrote:
> More generally, Joey's a member of DSA and as such has root on
> security-master.d.o; if he really wanted to he could maintain the dak
> install there (or an entirely different system) himself for security
I must not do that. Being a system administrator is not a green ligh
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
> that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
It didn't have.
The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
> the security team, why do you think it should be impossible fo
Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port
> > > > > machines.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'll turn the question around - what do _you_ think we're missing or
> not maintaining correctly? The services that I need are working OK,
> but I'm only one person.
I don't know of an important missing service, but I may have only
a limited view.
I'd still like to see a D
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.10.2250 +0100]:
> > > Pigs can fly and the Security Team is changing. I like to believe
> > > that the DPL team had a role in that. If it worked so well for
> >
> > It didn
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.11.0010 +0100]:
> > > > It didn't have.
> > > >
> > > > The changes were underway and in discussion independently.
> > >
> > > Not trying to pick
Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Having two developers-accessi
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard
> time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked
> Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have
> been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with
> him on
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Why would we need "more total CPU time"? Not even leisner is
> > overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
> > (leisner has a different pr
Frank Küster wrote:
> >>5. Do you see any services for our users or developers missing or
> >> poorly maintained? If so, which and what do you plan to do to
> >> fix this?
> >
> > I'm not directly aware of anything important missing at the moment. I
> > know that we struggled to get packages.d
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:20:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Such requests and requirements change the situation. However, I have
> > to admit that I first read about this particular requirement here. I
> > noticed some babbling about ppc64
Frank Küster wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Frank Küster wrote:
> >> >>5. Do you see any services for our users or developers missing or
> >> >> poorly maintained? If so, which and what do you plan to do to
> >&g
Frank Küster wrote:
> Moving this to -devel, it's off-topic for -vote; Cc to -admin.
>
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> At some place where it can be found even if you don't want to look up a
> >> month-old announcement. What abo
Steve Langasek wrote:
> The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data
>
>
> The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of
> software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time
>
Sven Luther wrote:
> What Steve and others who seconded him propose is to ship non-free firmware in
> main, and declaring it as data, and thus disguising it as free software.
I guess that's a good statement, it's disquising firmware, not necessarily
as Free Software, but disguising it. We should
Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Debian Project resolves that:
>
> (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form,
> as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0
ARGS. This is certainly one of the worst GR proposals I've seen.
Not seconded, of course.
I believe it woul
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 19:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > For me the key question is whether the d-i team is actually doing the
> > work or not. Are they? If the answer is "yes", then I might vote for
> > a delay. If the answer is "no", then I see no r
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 1. I'm utterly frustrated with your ways. The mail on d-d-a could not
> > have any other answer that "please release etch in time", that's
> > something a perfect moron could have predicted without a doubt.
>
> 26% of the people on the forums said supporting hard
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:03:47AM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I propose the following option to the GR:
>
> >
> > The Debian Project reaffirms its commitment of providing a 100% free
> > operating system, and reaffirms the decisions taken by GR 2004-03, but
> > som
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> > non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> > how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> > of t
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> two paragraphs:
>
> The first article[2] on the topic's already been
> published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a
> Debian project, and
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently "outside"
> > of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the
> > answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work
John Goerzen wrote:
> * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its
> development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing.
> I don't recall this coming with strings such as "can't be spent on
> programmer time". So there is even precedent for the project
> doing this s
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these
> > two paragraphs:
>
> > A question that has been raised is whether the
> > organisation can be sufficiently "outside" of Deb
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > > e
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]:
> > It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or
> > indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up
> > to.
>
> No, i
Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing
> > > > involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has)
> > >
Sven Luther wrote:
> Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than
> most GRs out there.
One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob
is somewhat "strange".
Regards,
Joey
--
Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessaril
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
> the Package Policy Com
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
> > therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
> > constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Le
> >> Note that if you can get SPI to transfer the debian.org zone to other
> >> DNS servers than the current ones, you can NMU the infrastructure.
>
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I heavily disagree to that. The current servers are owned by Debian or
> > sponsored to Debian by some
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:24:45AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> Personally, I don't like either of the checks, but I've seen zero
> > >> effort from Aurelian and friends to demonstrate they can be trusted,
> >
>
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> >> Note that if you can get SPI to transfer the debian.org zone to other
> >> DNS servers than the current ones, you can NMU the infrastructure.
> >
> > But (probably) only if it was at the request of the DPL.
>
> Could be at the request of the Project, via a GR I think, if
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unlikely. SPI usually has a defined authorisationship with an associated
> > project, this refers to people, not the project as a whole or their
> > developers or their internal voting res
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > [...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the
> > binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it
> > may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exi
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The
> > ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between
> > ] two uploads. [...]
> > ]
> > ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build
> > ] packages. [...]
Frank Küster wrote:
> >> > I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there
> >> > aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present:
> >>
> >> Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to
> >> /dev/null.
> >
> > FWIW, buildd mail i
Marc Haber wrote:
> Or are we going to require an IQ test before people allowing to vote,
> understanding the ballot being one of the test?
Seconded.
Regards,
Joey
--
The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:35:59PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [070314 19:25]:
> > > Since then we've also had Debian Times established
> > I don't see at all how this is realated to you being DPL - in fact, I
> > would have prefer
Steffen Joeris wrote:
> I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
> patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information.
> I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in
> dozens of mails. This is just my proposal an
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
> > meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
> > front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
> > just to find someone besides Joerg to also rea
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - Not everybody deserves to be DD. [2]
> [2] The NM process rejects some people who have the technical abilities to
> maintain packages but who are not in sync with the rest of the community.
> I fail to see why we should refuse their technical contribution. The NM
> proce
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > maintained by someone who isn't keeping up with Debian-wide changes, and
>
> Why that ? I expect all DM to be subscribed to d-d-a and would suggest a
> check (or even some enforcement with auto-subscription if we really want).
Why is this not written in the GR but the u
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 juillet 2007 à 16:20 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> > But what if this results in higher quality packages than the one of
> > overly busy DDs (because the maintainers are very focused on their pet
> > packages)? Did you think of this consequence?
>
> If so
Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote:
> > > > It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
> > > > meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
> > > > front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
> >
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
> > Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their teams
> > packages? And a subscriber and active Debian Edu developer I think it would
> > make complete sense and would be helpful, if certain non-DDs
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 11:37]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Holger Levsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070727 13:02]:
> > > > Sure. But why shouldnt trusted non-DDs not be able to upload their
> > > > teams
>
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Why are you setting up a buildd network not handled by the buildd admins
> > and by DSA ? (No need to reply, it's just to show you the parallel)
>
> Nice ad-hominem. It's always a pleasure to see how easily you fall in
> those traps when you don't have proper argument
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > arguments in favor of DM the more it's about introverted geeks, and
> > uncoordinated work. Maybe we should care more about people that are nice
> > to users rather about introverted guys that do not care about the rest
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
> > whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
> > what you do in private.
>
> I dont have a problem with it being public.
> I
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
> > short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
> > can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
> > fear of being accuse
Marc Haber wrote:
> I think that a longer term could be a good idea. There must be a
> reason why DPLs are usually invisible and unable to address the real
> problems in the project.
Which, of course and quite naturally, simply vanish when they take the
burdon of being DPL another year.
Regards,
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 19:54:00 -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The resolution passes, with 386 votes from 345 developers.
> >
>
> > The winners are:
> > Option 1 "Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers"
> >
> > -=-=-=
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2008 23:51, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > And if so, what is the plan for wordpress in etch and lenny?
> > I recommend to drop it from Lenny, but if people choose to
> > repeat mistakes I won't waste my time on argueing.
>
> Thanks for
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> > #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> > a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
>
> restore from backup.
>
> restore from snapshot.debia
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:28:06PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the final day of the nomination period, which started
> > on 2003/01/24, and shall end on 2003/02/14 00:00:00 UTC. The
> > campaigning period shall start then. Voting
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
[No need to cc dwn@ if you post to -vote and/or -devel-announce, monitoring
both always. Providing a stripped down paragraph, however, would be
appreciated.]
Rest for Moshe.
> Date: 24 Mar 2003 15:46:05 -
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PRO
Buddha Buck wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote (publically to Moshe Zadka):
> >And do you really believe that people want you as DPL when you are
> >apparently unable to compress an IRC log to the relevant "offensive"
> >messages, but send a 300 lines IRC logfile instead
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> > who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> > you held a vote which would ask whether to annul
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> >On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would
> >>mean losing much of the current Java support.
> >
> >I thought there were
Clint Adams wrote:
> > Almost all the support for non-free in Debian is a free result of
> > our support for free software. The n-m process, the BTS, the PTS, the
> > mailing lists, policy, our security infrastructure, our buildds, our
> > mirror network, release management, buildds all have to exi
Sven Luther wrote:
> > (One cannot start projects for non-free stuff on Sourceforge, of course,
> > but somebody could setup a similar service for www.nonfree.org. Asking
> > the Alioth admins how difficult that would be might be a good first step)
>
> Sourceforge is evil and non-free anyway, so w
Craig Sanders wrote:
> ALMOST FREE
> ---
While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package
doesn't meet the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our
mirrors. According to our own guidelines the packages are not free,
since they fail one or more clauses of our guidelines
Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > ALMOST FREE
> > > ---
> >
> > While I appreciate your effort, non-free means that the package doesn't meet
> > the DFSG but can be distributed by Debian and our mirrors. According to our
> > own guidelines the packages are not free, since they fail one or more
John Lines wrote:
> An easier route to make an ideologically pure Linux distribution, suitable for
> endorsement by RMS and the FSF would be for the FSF, who already have machines
> and infrastructure, to set up a Debian mirror which only contains main and
> re-badge it as fsf-linux. There are quit
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Debian Project Secretary 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. Th
Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> I have personally negotiated with several hardware vendors including
> Matrox, Nvidia, and Compaq about making drivers and other support
> software 100% DFSG compliant. The success has been mixed, but in every
> case, they are beginning to "see the light".
I'm very glad
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' pe
Sven Luther wrote:
> > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > stops distributing it but people will build ftp.non-free.org, what's
> > the different from the users' perspective? A new apt-line. Oh horror...
>
> Because most probably, nobody will build ftp.non
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 10:25]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040226 08:55]:
> > > > We cannot include it in Debian anyway, since it is non-free. If Debian
> > > > s
David N. Welton wrote:
> > Easy one. As seen on debian-devel@ recently, Progeny (I think,
> > correct me if I'm wrong) has this Componentized Linux idea. Which is
> > all nice and good, and should help custom distros all right. So, the
> > plans are set straight already.
>
> I saw Ian's online jou
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > No. Debian is about creating a operating system with free software,
> > and I don't think we should be in the business of distributing
> > non-free software. I think we should focus on what we do best (create
> > and integrate free software), and this would also get us
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think the following roles should be formally delegated:
> FTP Archives
> Release Manager
> Release Manager for "stable"
> Bug Tracking System
> Mailing Lists Administration
> Mailing Lists Archives
> New Maintainers
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> How would I manage the conflict? There's no problem. I'll just split
> into two, or duplicate myself.
I ... WANT ... THIS ... TECHNOLOGY !!!
Regards,
Joey
--
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that
> > > provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian
> > > w
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge
> > > installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Then we should change it again.
Yes, we should. The possibility to add 'non-free' shouldn't be mentioned
at al
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:22:15AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:46:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> >
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > >hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that
> > > >they produce everything built in their devices?
> > >
> > > Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to
> > > build into their devices?
> >
> > Of course they do, b
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > requires work and copying the non-free bugs over as well, and you'd
> > lose the ability to reassign bugs from and to free packages to and
> > from non-free packages but since the archives would be separated
> > anyway, I don't consider this as a big problem.
>
>
Adam Heath wrote:
> In the past several years, I have seen a few different DPLs in (in)action. I
> have not seen the betterment of the Debian Project as a whole(as a result of
> actions the DPLs have done), yet each DPL has said how well they have improved
> the situation. Additionally, each cand
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040426 07:10]:
> > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was
> > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
> > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these
> things removed from the Debian system -- ie main.
>
> This will result in the following problems:
>
> * important packages such as glibc will have no documentation
This should not be too bad given
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Did you have a look to FSF-related software in the last few time?
I normally use them, of course.
> Issue a 'man emacs' for instance
What am I supposed to read there? Mine doesn't say that it's using
the FDL but since its date says it's from 1995 December 7,
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
