On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:46:00PM -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> > unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within Debian.
>
> That is odd.
Boyuan Yang <073p...@gmail.com> writes:
> Howerver, what we, the distribution maintainers, really care is that
> these files do not conflict with our guideline aka DFSG. In this
> situation it is the license that matters, not copyright holders. For
> large software like linux kernel or libboost, w
在 2017年12月6日星期三 CST 下午11:12:19，Steve Robbins 写道：
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:26:31 AM CST Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the rej
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:26:31 AM CST Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 23:46:00 -0600, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> > > unf
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:46:00 PM CST Steve Robbins wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 9:00:10 AM CST Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the rejection but "Copyright: See individual source files"
> > unfortunatley does not meet the high standards we strive for within
> > Deb
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It might be less disruptive to add a new field like Subsection; that'd avoid
> the need to change any of archive tools -- including ones not used on the
> official archive, like reprepro.
...
> Because Section: implies an unique section, whil
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:05:51AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> > * splitting non-free in subsets;
> > * adding a non-free-firmware area;
>
> I think we don't want either of these, instead we should *add*
> additional Packages files for
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:55:20AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I have no opinion about win32-loader since I've never used it and would
never use it (I don't even have any family members who would use it or be
able to use it), so I'm really unqualified to comment. What you describe
sounds great fo
Paul Wise writes:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm certainly not arguing for removing this as an option. I am arguing
>> for challenging ourselves to do better than that for as many cases as
>> we can, because that's not a fun experience. Even those of us who
>> thor
Russ, thanks, convinced.
On 06.12.2017 00:15, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's not quite that simple. Once it's included in the default
> sources.list, those packages show up in apt-cache search and other tools,
> or in aptitude browsing. Then, when looking for a package to solve a
> particular proble
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:29:43PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Myself, I would prefer us to keep both the free-software-only ISO and
> the non-free ISO with firmware and other things needed to get typical
> modern hardware running, and improve the discoverability of the
> latter. I think we can
On 2017-12-06 12:24, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
I feel that having Apparmor running and not doing anything will give people a false sense of security, on my test
machine almost nothing was confined
Yeah, we really need much more working profiles ready to be shipped... Thoguh I believe our AppAr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille
* Package name: clonalorigin
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Xavier Didelot
* URL : https://github.com/xavierdidelot/clonalorigin
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C++
Description : inference of hom
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:04:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
you want debian to be uninstallable on some hardware without a copy of
windows? that doesn't seem like a step forward or even a desirable goal.
Of course not, that would be a ridic
thib...@debian.org
>
>Having the two download links side by side on the front page would
>already be a major improvement, but it would still be very confusing for
>our users. That's why I would prefer to put the "beware of the leopard"
>sign inside the install medium, and provide only one medium
Hi Laurent,
Laurent Bigonville:
> The SELinux policy could be altered to either run everything that we know is
> not
> ready to be confined in an unconfined domain or put that domain in permissive
> (which
> would result in a lot of denials being logged), so it's possible to behave
> more or
>
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:51:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Stone writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:22:50PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Ubuntu has successfully shipped with AppArmor enabled.
>
> > For all the packages in debian? Cool! That will sav
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Paolo Greppi
* Package name: node-locate-path
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : Sindre Sorhus (sindresorhus.com)
* URL : https://github.com/sindresorhus/locate-path#readme
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: JavaScript
18 matches
Mail list logo
