On 15 May 2003 12:42:55 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> i'm no populist, but it strikes me no matter how you phrase it, that
> an organization dedicated to user freedoms has latent problems if
> its basic policy process doesn't emanate from the users.
Sorry. Those who
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. One problem I have is that the "new" scrollbars are actually a
> loss functionality-wise. Being able to scroll up or down with
> left/right clicks is useful...
I agree about the button functionality -- I think the GTK scrollbars suck
functionally (
Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The problem is that the rules (guidelines, actually) for deciding
> what we consider free enough to put in Debian, and what we don't,
> do not emanate from the users but from our constitution a
D.Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> _All I request is that you allow us users (who still consider them
> free, and I bet, most of us do!) a way to continue to use them easily
> while still keeping the rest of the "nonfree" world off my debian
> box._
The FSF could setup an APT repository and pack
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's clearly a strong retro contingent in the emacs community, but even
> there, I think a general rule is that -- for better or for worse -- `eye
> candy matters.' This is especially true for newbie users.
>
> For this reason, I think that if there's
On May 14, Peter S Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Package: emacs-goodies-el
> Version: 21.0-1
> Severity: normal
>
> I can't believe I never noticed this before, but it likely affects the
> majority of Elisp package. See if my reasoning is flawed...
>
> If I do `apt-get remove em
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:03:32PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> One thing I'm not all that happy about is the xaw3d scrollbars. I'm
> tempted to go back to the plain ones. They seemed cleaner and more
> functional to me. I suppose I'm also going to have to think about
> what (if anything) I migh
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:48:31PM -0400, D.Goel wrote:
> FSF is one of organizations i would consider authorities on
> definitions of "freedom".
The FSF is authoritative on the FSF's definition of "freedom", Debian
is authoritative on Debian's definition.
> But just because DFSG does not agree
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From what I've seen on the emacs groups, it's mostly people who are
> very conservative about changing what works, and those who dislike
> the `new fangled' look of emacs 21.
If you just turn off the toolbar and menubar, it's surprisingly less
fangled. I
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not a great fan of orphaning complicated packages. Are there users
> that need emacs20 because emacs21 is broken for some things? If not,
> and there's no real reason for emacs20, I'd suggest that you offer it up
> for adoption but don't orphan
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The problem is that the rules (guidelines, actually) for deciding
what we consider free enough to put in Debian, and what we don't,
do not emanate from the users but from our constitution and
social contract.
i'm no populist, but it strik
Package: emacsen-common
Version: 1.4.15
Severity: normal
Hi,
debian-emacs-policy should instruct package maintainers who add
autoloads and other setups in an /etc/emacs/site-start.d/ file to make
that conditional upon the package actually being installed.
If the package is removed and not purged
Thien-Thi Nguyen (2003-05-15 09:25:06 -0400) :
> Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>The problem is that the rules (guidelines, actually) for deciding
>what is free and what isn't do not emanate from the users but
>from our constitution and social contract.
[OT: On the other han
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The problem is that the rules (guidelines, actually) for deciding
what is free and what isn't do not emanate from the users but from
our constitution and social contract.
well, the laws in some countries are heading towards this same rigidity;
who b
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So why does documentation need invariant sections?
analogously, why does rfc822 specify header formats? ability to forge
certain out-of-band meta information makes spamming s much easier.
I see. Since you are here not for serious discours
"Thomas F. Burdick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While emacs21 is unusable on things like Sun Ultra-1's and Pentiums,
> it's also unusable in some shared and networked environments, even
> with top-of-the-line hardware. Emacs21 is a resource hog compared to
> 20. Not so much in terms of memory,
D.Goel (2003-05-14 23:48:31 -0400) :
> _All I request is that you allow us users (who still consider them
> free, and I bet, most of us do!) a way to continue to use them
> easily while still keeping the rest of the "nonfree" world off my
> debian box._
Read /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.
17 matches
Mail list logo
