Re: LCC and blobs
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:23:54 +0100, Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> said:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@mailworks.org> writes:
>>> Is your name input for a state-machine?
>> You should see what it does to TECO. My name is a killing word.
> :-)
>>> [data == software ?]
>> Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote
>> over it. Then another debate and another vote.
> Hmm. I remember we had an "editorial change" that then turned into
Ah, the tired refrain of incompetent nincompoops too fucking
lazy to read email about critical changes to core documents delivered
into their mailboxes not once, not twice, but three times at least,
and this after months of discussion.
And given that the SC was originally intendeed to cover
everything on an official CD, yes, htese were merely editorial
changes.
> something completely different, followed by 6 damage limitation
> options and 1 hard line option. A damage limitation option won, but
> I if I read the matrix correctly the hard line option was defeated
> by _every_ damage limitation clause, so I would not be so certain
> that "we had this debate".
Right. The repeasl the changes bit was defeated by every
single grandfather our lax observance of the DFSG until after this
next release. So, we had an option to reeal the changes, we did not
take it.
> Post-sarge we will have the debate
What makes you think there shall be a debate?
> and I hope that this time ftp-master will state the consequences of
> the options in advance, so there are no surprises any more. Also
> having less then 7 options would also be nice.
Why is another vote needed? Who is asking for one?
> Well. The last couple of times I thought rationality would return
> and I grew tired of the gedanken-experiments going on, and actually
> I did not care for the documentation idiocy. I should have paied
> more attention to my history classes and how extremists will take
> over democratic regimes because the majority cannot be bothered
> resisting simplistic arguments until it is too late. Making Debian
> uninstallable because of mistaken beliefs is too much and I care
> enough to resists this. I survived Erik Naggum, so this should be a
> walk in the park.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.1
That's the version that shall be in effect post sarge.
manoj
--
Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: