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
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 reading
this doc will found anarchy stupid and anarchist morons
47 matches
Mail list logo
