[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move

On Tuesday 10 May 2005 3:22pm, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10285 March 1977, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >> Will you pay us for the work and cover legal fees if any should arise?
> >
> > Sure.  Because any rational person knows it won't happen.
> Laywers arent rationale.
> > Give us one reasonable example of why some one would waste time and
> > money to sue the  amd64.debian.net server owner in this matter, when
> > they have absolutely nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to LOSE
> > if the judge gets angry about the pointlessness of their suit?
> With that logic: Why does SCO still exist?

All laywers are rational enough to know to not waste their time going after an 
organization THAT DOESN'T HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS.  That's why nobody is going 
to care, Debian is broke anyway, there is no point in a lawsuit.

> > Yes you can.  That's my point.  Non-free has already been vetted by
> > Debian itself, and we are part of Debian.  Any rational judge will see
> > that, if given evidence by the Debian organization itself (see below).
> No we cant. Just get a CLUE, we are *NOT* debian. We are as similar as
> one can get, but the Debian stuff is on .d.o hosts.

What difference does it make where we are located if Debian itself says we're 
part of them?

> > user.  I'll bet if you had asked on d.d you could have quickly put
> > together a list of 30 - 50 packages which were ok.  So why nothing in
> > over a week?  Are you holding up all of non-free just because of 1
> > package?
> No. Because of all the crap that is in there and because WE HAVE MORE
> IMPORTANT THINGS TODO - which includes reading crap from someone who
> just trolls on lists and not does any work for it.

Nobody did any work before because it wasn't necessary.  Now you're telling us 
there has been no work done at all on non-free.  So you guys really had no 
plan at all to get non-free moved over, did you?  So why didn't you just say 
that to begin with?

> > And what is the point?  We are Debian.  It doesn't matter which server
> > we're on.
> We arent, get a clue.

I'm not the clueless one here.

> > Hogwash again.  We aren't talking about *release* dates, Goswin, we're
> > only talking about how long it takes before debian.org is ready to move
> > the amd64 port onto it.  Once sarge is out, everybody can get back to
> > moving *forward*, as opposed to running in place right now, which means
> > the ftpmasters of debian.org can do what they need to do to make room for
> > pure64 *Sid*, and move it over so we get synced up as Etch.  Sarge can
> > stay where it is, that's not the issue.  Getting the *next* Debian AMD64
> > port onto debian.org is not going to take 3 years.
> Hell, please go and read what amd64.d.n is and you would see what a mess
> you just wrote. amd64.d.n will exist as long as Sarge is there.

And I've said twice now that I'm not talking about Sarge, I'm talking about 
Sid.  This has nothing to do with release dates on anything, its just about 
co-location of the port and non-free.

> And actually there was one who just went over the non-free crap, looking
> at the licenses, giving us something to work with.
> If non-free is so important for you - why did you wasted time writing
> such mails and havent done that work yourself?

Because the work has bloody well already been DONE!  Everybody knows we are 
destined to return to debian.org, and we ARE Debian now in all but a 
technicality, a technicality that won't make a bit of difference in court and 
goes away with a simple statement from Debian that we are part of them, just 
not on their servers yet.  But you guys never bothered to ask, you just threw 
out non-free without thinking about it, because it was something you wanted 
to do anyway.

> Thats my last mail in this thread, I have more important things todo.

Yea, like annoying users by leaving non-free behind just because you're still 
mad that the DDs voted to keep it.  Sure.

Reply to: