Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move
I don't know why some of you are making all that noise... if I have
understood correctly, non-free will be made available after sarge release
(which is supposed to happen within 3 or 4 weeks)... so... why bother the
developers instead of thaking them for all the work they've already made?
Regards,
Rafael Rodríguez
Goswin von Brederlow dijo:
> Ed Cogburn <edcogburn@hotpop.com> writes:
>
>> On Sunday 08 May 2005 9:27am, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> On 10283 March 1977, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>>> >> Whats going on == someone needs to check it. Thats it.
>>> >
>>> > That was the point made by Ed Cogburn. Its already been checked in
>>> the
>>> > other arch! If this is not the case please explain why. Without
>>> that
>>> > explanation I am forced to agree with Ed - the problem are
>>> political...
>>> > Which is the bane of debian.
>>>
>>> We are *NOT* Debian
>>
>>
>> We ARE Debian for Heaven's sake! This move to another server is just
>> TEMPORARY! We WILL be Debian as soon as sarge gets out and development
>> on
> ^^^^
>
> You said it yourself.
>
>> etch picks up. Who in the world is going to get upset when they know we
>> will
>> soon be part of official Debian, and they've already given permission
>> for
>> Debian to distribute their stuff! Get real people!
>>
>> How many non-free packages have been cleared? Why haven't you at least
>> set up
>> non-free and moved the packages known to be ok into it? I know for sure
>> that
>> the rogue-like games in non-free are perfectly fine and can brought
>> on-line
>> now, since they and a lot of other stuff is in non-free just because
>> they are
>> "old" pre-GPL software with "don't sell for money" restrictions which
>> make
>> them fail the DFSG test on distribution, but are otherwise fully
>> open-source
>> (and who's earlier authors can no longer be found to ask them if they'd
>> agree
>> to a change to the GPL or some other Free license).
>>
>> In fact, looking through the non-free docs section, most of that can go
>> in
>> right now because they don't require anyone's permission to distribute
>> since
>> they're in non-free because of the dispute between Debian and FSF over
>> documentation.
>
> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
>
> Seriously, get some patience and don't inflame the situation
> please. Things like "most of that" is of zero help in deciding what
> can go in and what not. We know most of it can, the question is what
> packages are those in particular. We can't just add all of non-free
> and say it is mostly OK.
>
>>> thats all you need to get!
>>
>>
>> Hogwash. This sounds like an extremely defensive response. How many
>> packages
>> have been cleared for non-free? Why haven't you just put up a non-free
>> section with the stuff thats been cleared? Why has it been more than a
>> week,
>> with no non-free section at all, no indication of how the "vetting"
>> process
>> is going, and with you telling us above that we don't need to know
>> anything
>> more? Now do you understand why I'm just a little bit skeptical?
>
> We had (an empty) non-free right after the dns switch so apt-get
> wouldn't fail. And we told you exactly what the status is: "Someone
> has to do the work".
>
>> Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone
>> complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of
>> course,
>> NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon
>> anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server),
>> and
>> they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of
>> non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason
>> they're in non-free to begin with.
>
> The pine author would for one thing.
>
>> Re-evaluating non-free is just silly when we're going to "officially"
>> become
>> Debian again in a few months, certainly less than a year, anyway
>> (assuming
>> Debian gets Sarge out soon). Heck, Debian doesn't even advertise us,
>> we're
>> the bastard child they don't want to talk about, because when they do it
>> reignites the argument about which architectures to "officially"
>> support, and
>> why... and why not. NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE!
>
> It will be at least 18 month going by the release plans till etch will
> be stable and sarge amd64 can be dropped. Considering the track record
> of past timelines 2-3 years is probably more accurate. That is a long
> time for someone to start suing.
>
> In one point you are right though:
>
> NO ONE IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT OUR NON-FREE! None of us anyway. With
> the exception of nvidia* package it seems. That is the only package
> that users missed so far. Please excuse us for not giving it higher
> priority than fixing RC bugs or otherwise vital archive maintainance.
>
> MfG
> Goswin
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
Reply to: