Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> Could you explain why you want to do this with metapackages, rather than
> extending the definition of an archive section so that non-free and
> contrib may be more finely divided up? The various implementation
> p
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> A package can only be in a single section.
That wouldn't prevent adding subsetted Packages files:
deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free/firmware non-free/docs
Types: deb
URIs: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/
Suites: unst
]] Sean Whitton
> Could you explain why you want to do this with metapackages, rather than
> extending the definition of an archive section so that non-free and
> contrib may be more finely divided up? The various implementation
> problems that have been raised in this thread are all/mostly due
Dear Ian,
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have a suggestion for how this could be done.
>
> We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib
> a name in the package namespace. I'm going to call these packages
> antimetapackages.
It would be good if
The Wanderer writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> Can you provide an example of how, under your proposal, someone who
> wants to - e.g. - forbid the installation of any nonfree-gfdl-invariant
> packages would do so? I don't see any way to accomplish that based on
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:53:34PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I think Debian has better things to do than working on fine grained control
> over non-free stuff. Obviously anybody is free to work on this, but I dont
> think we should make our repositories, packages, policies and workflow s
>
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:40:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib
> > >
On 2017-03-07 at 11:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
>
>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> I have a suggestion for how this could be done.
>>>
>>> We give
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:40:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> I would like to shelve this suggestion. The concept of
> antimetapackages can certainly be used this way from a technical point
> of view, but I think the goal there is controversial. Maintainers of
> packages currently in main
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have a suggestion for how this could be done.
> >
> > We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib
> > a name in the
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:48:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have a suggestion for how this could be done.
>
> We give each reason-why-a-package-might-be-nonfree-or-contrib
> a name in the package namespace. I'm going to call these packages
> antimetapackages.
>
> Each package in non-free or
Philip Hands writes ("Re: Non-free RFCs in stretch"):
> I presume this issue arises because people (myself included) dislike the
> fact that in order to install some RFCs and/or GNU documentation one has
> to flick a switch that also opens the door to some thoroughly
> propr
Hi there,
first of all, thanks Simon for your work.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 17:33:44 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Iustin Pop wrote:
> > Could you try to explain to me why one would need the same liberties for
> > source code and standard documents?
>
> Among many other reasons:
Thanks Josh for lis
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:58:02PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I presume this issue arises because people (myself included) dislike the
> fact that in order to install some RFCs and/or GNU documentation one has
> to flick a switch that also opens the door to some thoroughly
> proprietary software.
Josh Triplett writes:
> Iustin Pop wrote:
>> On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
>> > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to
>> > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows
>> > > modification when ch
Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> > > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to
> > > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows
> > > modification when changing the name or namespace fo
On 2017-03-05 12:41:18, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> > I'd like to see a compromise in the DFSG like #4 for standards to
> > allow their inclusion in Debian when their license at least allows
> > modification when changing the name or namespace for schemas and the
> > like.
Le 4 mars 2017 10:13:21 GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson a
écrit :
>Hi all,
>
>I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and
>found
>the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1].
>
>I know this is late in the release cycle, but I believe these are real
>RC
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and
> > found the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work
> > here [1].
>
> Instead of trying to get standards documents out of Debian
Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:
> On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found
>> the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1].
>
> Instead of trying to get standards documents out of Debian, I'd r
On 03/04/2017 10:13 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found
> the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1].
Instead of trying to get standards documents out of Debian, I'd rather
see effort invested in working on
Hi all,
I have searched for non-free licensed IETF RFCs in the archive and found
the files below in the stretch suite. Compare earlier work here [1].
I know this is late in the release cycle, but I believe these are real
RC bugs so it appears to me that bug reports should be filed. I post
this
22 matches
Mail list logo
