Yes, by all means we should ignore the fake personas, Mr. Natural Linux,
whoever you are.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Natural Linux wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses given
> in the article?
>
> The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.
>
RogÃrio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I have already merged some bugs on the BTS, but I myself can't do
> much. I would invite other users to help with this. Perhaps this way the
> bug count will drop and the maintainers will give up maintaining their
> packages, leaving room for som
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't this exactly the obligation you impose when you allow that invariant
> sections from the GFDL are DFSG-free? The classic invariant section is
> literally RMS's soapbox in the EMACS documentation...
Yes, it is just such an obligation. But apparentl
Jeremy Nickurak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue isn't whether we should keep racist material out of
> debian. It's a matter of providing software without racist material
> when people don't want racist material, joke or otherwise.
Right now, I have no trouble: I don't use bitchx.
If I w
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If an individual developer feels it's warranted, then by all means, they
> can do so. But making it a Debian motto to do such is a bad idea.
Oh, certainly. I don't think we should have *any* kind of Debian
policy on such things.
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changing some working simply because you are offended by it is just
> plain wrong. You are making a decision based solely on your own personal
> criteria, rather than that of sound technical advice.
I think a Debian developer has a perfectly legitimate ri
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is unreasonable. That's like saying that the library has a
> right to burn books that it finds filthy or innappropriate. If you
> modify source code simply to remove the authors remarks, your are
> censoring, and are no better than a book-burner
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't start a trend that we cannot stick to. Unless you really feel like
> perusing the sources of everything (grep -ir fuck in the kernel source),
> you should drop this now. Yes it sucks. Yes, a lot of people disagree
> with such remarks, but freedom com
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. His email prompted my question. I didn't realize he was *sure*,
> and I wanted to double check before I go make irreversable (well
> without using epochs) changes in the Debian package.
> The real problem was that I didn't notice the release of 20.
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> P.S. The version number is 20.4.pre20.5a-1. This avoids the problem
> with the fact that the upstream tarfile's version 20.5a sorts (via
> dpkg) as newer than 20.5 which hasn't been released yet. Epochs would
> be another solution, but I haven't decided
10 matches
Mail list logo
