On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, MartÃn Ferrari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > better job of them
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:13:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:32:54 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to
> > limit the number of important hats one we
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> > propose a reason for such a limit ot
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:21:52 -0400, Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:44:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
> > that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
> > i
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> > copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright. Once we get
> > this, I propose we ame
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:32:19 +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote
> 2. If tarball is not redistributable
> It belongs in non-free, or must be repackaged to become redistributable
No, If its not redistributable, It doesn't belong in non-free or any
other place we distribute software. This is why we d
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:46:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear Clint,
>
> I also think that there are many restricted operations that should be opened.
> Write access to our website, chosing the priority and section of our pacakges,
> triggering bin-NMUs, designating new members, inspectin
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:58:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> you give three interesting examples on how the FTP team is isolating itself.
>
>
> 1) By a combination of (self-appointed?) authority and technical design, the
> package section splitting becomes a private tool of the
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:45:45PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If it is not an export or a license violation that a member of the FTP team
> inspects a package, then I do not think it is for any other member of the
> project. I am not proposing to give a read access to the NEW queue for any
> ot
10 matches
Mail list logo
