On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter:
> > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
> > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
> > dist. No major problem
[about a flat-file installation tool].
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 07:58:02PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> If you make such a tool and people start to use it on a large scale, you'd
> better be sure you get the package dependencies right.
The context was data files which have no particular adminis
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Exactly. A better designed package manager would support modular package
> format handling. then we could simply do (let's call the package manager
> hpm for now):
>
> hpm -i blacksteel.etheme instead dpkg -i etheme-blacksteel.deb
> hpm -i realvid
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:12:06AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Alternate question: why do we even have to package up flat text files?
> Why can't we just import them into debian in some regular manner? [I can
> see that naming convention is important, but are there any other issues
> beyond tha
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>
> Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg
> files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules
> file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call
> doc-base and be done w
On Sep 27, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
I agree. I'd like to see another organization supported by SPI packaging
things like Project Gutemberg books and so on.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Why even involve debhelper? At least in the case of the Project Gutenberg
> files some of which I have, they are just long ascii files so the rules
> file could just stick them into (for example) /usr/share/doc/etexts call
> doc-ba
On 28 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> More serious:
>
Hahaha.
> customer: I found a typo ...
> |I don't understand that ancient word (very likely in over here)
> | Luther's bible says ... but what you sold me is completely
> different.
>
> |Why do you incl
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
> > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
>
> Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documen
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> I can't help but infer from this statement that you feel the anarchism
> package is of low worth. If this was not your intent, please feel free to
> clarify.
For myself, no I don't. But it is only a concern of Debian if for
instance there was a real space
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> if it's free and it's packaged then we accept it into the dist in the
> location defined by policy - at the moment, that's debian main. we
> probably should, as has been discussed before, have an etexts and a data
> section for this kind of stuff
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:43:50AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> David Starner writes:
> > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful
> > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free
> > way of seperating programs on to the CD's, by actual
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:19AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me
> > or disagree with me about the relative utility of these two packages.
> > by not censoring packages, by refusing
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> David Starner writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > > Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and
> there
> > > has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and
David Starner writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and there
> > has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and
> > other packages non-essential to using an OS.
> >
ote:
> Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:46:39 +0200
> From: Siggy Brentrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Censoring :) (was: Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb)
> Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:11:42 -
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
> > I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
>
> Maybe it's time to fork off an independent docume
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> Is it really censoring to keep all non-technical packages out of main?
> I don't say don't package it nor don't make it available.
Maybe it's time to fork off an independent documentation project?
We'd need to provide them a stable
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter:
> > There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
> > into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
> > dist.
> >
> > The way
Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Siggy Brentrup's letter:
> There should be one for the main distribution. Assume I want to go
> into the CD business providing support for packages in the main
> dist. No major problem with most of the packages, but I am not willing
> to support packages with ph
*** Please _don't_Cc:_ me when following up to the list ***
Sorry for responding late, had a mail hickup on sunday :(
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> it's irrelevant whether other debian developers or users agree with me
> or disagree with me about the relative utility of the
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>Some packages are "worth" more than others. Worth is often hard to define
>but not impossible. Debian may not want to get into the definition
>business but that doesn't mean it can't be done and circumstances may
>force it too.
I can't help but infe
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:55:09AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 09:10:19PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > > - is it free?
> > > - could someone be bothered doing the work of packaging it?
> > >
> > > if the answer to both questions is yes, then there is no
> > > justi
Sorry to sort of butt in here again, but maybe a committed Debian
user's perspective would be helpful...
On 09/26/99 at 11:55:09, Craig Sanders wrote concerning "Re:
anarchism_7.7-1.deb":
> > One approach which has been suggested is to make extra cds by section.
> >
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 09:10:19PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > - is it free?
> > - could someone be bothered doing the work of packaging it?
> >
> > if the answer to both questions is yes, then there is no
> > justification for refusing the package.
>
> Yes but the maintainer should also a
On 25 Sep 1999, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> You might equally well consider this for yourself. Other people
> (including other people belonging to your particular religion) might
> regard different things as offensive than you do.
>
If one is worried about how something is going to be viewed by Mus
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > The criterion should be utility.
>
> wrong. we've had this censorship discussion many times before. the only
> criteria for inclusion in debian is:
>
Yes I know. I remember it h
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 08:18:04PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:51:36AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 24 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>
> > In my understanding the bible packages belong into contrib *at
> > best*, since it's value to the public is at least questionable if not
> > offensive to muslims, buddhists(no not to them), hindus ...
>
>
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:51:36AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful
> > > to them, why don't we look at the popularity conte
Excerpts from debian: 25-Sep-99 Re: Useless packages (was R.. by David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is there any reason to think it's not correct? More importantly, even
> if it is somewhat wrong, is there any reason to think it's not better
> than what we have?
Well, accurate for the data it gets doesn'
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:28:57AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Instead of each developer chose what packages are and aren't useful
> > to them, why don't we look at the popularity contest? A simple, bias-free
> > way of seperating programs on to the CD's,
> In my understanding the bible packages belong into contrib *at
> best*, since it's value to the public is at least questionable if not
> offensive to muslims, buddhists(no not to them), hindus ...
youre trying to be politically correct
yuck !
i hoped for higher level of discusion than in
equal-ri
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> The criterion should be utility.
wrong. we've had this censorship discussion many times before. the only
criteria for inclusion in debian is:
- is it free?
- could someone be bothered doing the work of packaging it?
if the
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Nevertheless it is moot point because we are running out of room and there
> has to be a third CD. It might as well contain all the documents and
> other packages non-essential to using an OS.
>
> Here's another idea. What about
> Taking the risk to burn like hell: I think the "exhaustive exploration"
> of ANY political theory and practice is VERY misplaced in ANY Linux
> distribution. I would say the same thing about "The top 1000 FAQ on
> home-made apple pie", but nobody has packaged that (yet).
>
> To give a positive fo
On 24 Sep 1999, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> In my understanding the bible packages belong into contrib *at
> best*, since it's value to the public is at least questionable if not
> offensive to muslims, buddhists(no not to them), hindus ...
>
Um, I'm a Hindu, a Shastri (Hindu priest) actually. And
On 09/24/99 at 21:29:04, Siggy Brentrup wrote concerning "Re:
anarchism_7.7-1.deb":
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my understanding the bible packages belong into contrib *at
> best*, since it's value to the public is at least questionable
Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just make sure that when you do throw it out, you take the bible with it :)
*SECONDED*
> I dont think throwing out bible(1) is a good idea
> It is exactly, letter-after-letter what it claim to be, it is on 2nd CD,
> well-compressed
> (anarchis
> Just make sure that when you do throw it out, you take the bible with it :)
I dont think throwing out bible(1) is a good idea
It is exactly, letter-after-letter what it claim to be, it is on 2nd CD,
well-compressed
(anarchism was in both text and html unpacked versions) and
is wide-used doc, al
Bjoern Brill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Taking the risk to burn like hell: I think the "exhaustive exploration"
> of ANY political theory and practice is VERY misplaced in ANY Linux
> distribution. I would say the same thing about "The top 1000 FAQ on
> home-made apple pie", but nobody has pack
Mark Brown wrote:
> IIRC, it was this very package that prompted the last discussion about
> setting up a data section. What came of that?
I got no reponses from the following post to debian-policy two
weeks ago:
To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Data section accepted a while ago.
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I agree with you, and wish we'd toss all non-relevant packages
> out, or at least move them into the data section.
> (That said, I think stuff like coastline data that we could use
> to make maps would be okay for the data section; Where do I draw
>
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:52:41PM +0200, Bjoern Brill wrote:
> Taking the risk to burn like hell: I think the "exhaustive exploration"
> of ANY political theory and practice is VERY misplaced in ANY Linux
> distribution. I would say the same thing about "The top 1000 FAQ on
> home-made apple pie"
I agree with you, and wish we'd toss all non-relevant packages
out, or at least move them into the data section.
(That said, I think stuff like coastline data that we could use
to make maps would be okay for the data section; Where do I draw
the line? Well, can you at least compute the stuff? Or
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> I suggest renaming anarchist_7.7-1.deb to
> anarcho-communism_7.7-1.deb or throwing it out of distribution
> cause it have nothing to do with real anarchy
> and make mess in peoples' minds
> someone who doesnt really know what anarchy is after rea
46 matches
Mail list logo
