Hello gregor,
On Tue 12 Nov 2019 at 11:32PM +01, gregor herrmann wrote:
> I was not aware of a difference in strength between the two
> recommendation [0] but yes, the "people with no reason to prefer
> either" was the direction I was heading at.
Well, dh is a recommendation of Policy, but
gregor herrmann dixit:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:08:56 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> optimising for writing these files, I don't think we should be expecting
>> people to come up with a package-specific reason if they find themselves
Thanks.
>> I'd like to suggest this recommendation could be of
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 09:49:26PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2019, 13:40 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
>
> [snip]
> > If forcing machine-readable copyright is required for UMEGAYA,
> > then I’m sorry to say I will be removing debian/upstream/metadata
> > from some
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 06:07:46AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Andreas" == Andreas Tille writes:
>
> Andreas> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:32:09PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> >> > I'd like to suggest this recommendation could be of the same
> >> strength as > the "use salsa"
> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille writes:
Andreas> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:32:09PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> > I'd like to suggest this recommendation could be of the same
>> strength as > the "use salsa" recommendation, i.e., weaker than
>> the dh recommendation, > and
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:32:09PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest this recommendation could be of the same strength as
> > the "use salsa" recommendation, i.e., weaker than the dh recommendation,
> > and directed at people with no reasons to prefer either who are
> >
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:08:56 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 09 Nov 2019 at 03:07PM +01, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > Lately we as a project, guided by the DPL, have been in
> > recommendation mode anyway: "Use dh(1) unless you have a reason not
> > to", "Use git(1) and salsa unless …".
> > I
Hello,
On Sat 09 Nov 2019 at 03:07PM +01, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Lately we as a project, guided by the DPL, have been in
> recommendation mode anyway: "Use dh(1) unless you have a reason not
> to", "Use git(1) and salsa unless …".
>
> I think "Write d/copyright in Copyright-Format 1.0 unless
Am Donnerstag, den 07.11.2019, 13:40 + schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
[snip]
> If forcing machine-readable copyright is required for UMEGAYA,
> then I’m sorry to say I will be removing debian/upstream/metadata
> from some of my packages rather.
Why is a machine-readable debian/copyright (DEP5,
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 1:40 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Maybe one of these days I'll take a couple of days and turn it into
> something vaguely maintainable and usable by someone else.
We already have a lot of similar tools for this, unfortunately the
most accurate ones (FOSSology & ScanCode)
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 4:16 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019 3:05:21 PM EST Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > Scott Kitterman writes:
> > > I'd like to suggest thinking about this from the perspective of new
> > > contributors. Copyright-format 1.0 has a lot of
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 3:05:21 PM EST Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > I'd like to suggest thinking about this from the perspective of new
> > contributors. Copyright-format 1.0 has a lot of specific requirements.
> > Do we really want to recommend that
Hi Scott,
Scott Kitterman writes:
> I'd like to suggest thinking about this from the perspective of new
> contributors. Copyright-format 1.0 has a lot of specific requirements. Do
> we
> really want to recommend that before someone can package software for Debian
> they need to learn this
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 9:07:39 AM EST gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:40:28 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Some remarks:
> > Andreas Tille dixit:
> > >explicit wish to not use DEP5. I wonder what other reasons might exist
> > >to explicitly stick to the non-machine
gregor herrmann writes:
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
>> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages people
>> to include more detail than is needed.
>>
>> I think we
gregor herrmann dixit:
>Lately we as a project, guided by the DPL, have been in
>recommendation mode anyway: "Use dh(1) unless you have a reason not
>to", "Use git(1) and salsa unless …".
>
>I think "Write d/copyright in Copyright-Format 1.0 unless you have a
>specific reason not to do this for a
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages people
> to include more detail than is needed.
>
> I think we should be optimising for reduced
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:40:28 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Some remarks:
> Andreas Tille dixit:
> >explicit wish to not use DEP5. I wonder what other reasons might exist
> >to explicitly stick to the non-machine readable format.
> I prefer human-readable format. I also often deal in software
On November 8, 2019 6:29:05 PM UTC, Simon McVittie wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 at 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
>> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages
>people
>> to include more detail
Simon McVittie writes:
> into this less precise form?
> Format: imagine the correct URL is here
> Copyright:
> 2010-2019 Aaron Aaronson
> 2019 Belinda Bloggs
> 2016 Chris Cross
> License: AAA and BBB and CCC
> License: AAA
> You may do some things
>
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 at 10:51:45 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> DEP-5 is the fastest way to write a d/copyright in some cases, but in
> others it is not. Part of this is that DEP-5 somewhat encourages people
> to include more detail than is needed.
It would probably help if we had more clarity
Hello,
On Thu 07 Nov 2019 at 01:36AM -05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Although I use it for simple packages, for complex ones I think it makes
> debian/copyright maintenance much harder (many more things to get wrong).
> It's totally optional and should absolutely stay that way.
>
> The purpose of
On 11/7/19 7:40 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I also often deal in software which
> has more… flexibility than the DEP 5 format allows, or where it is
> plain simpler.
Would you be willing to share an example, at a minimum just the name of
the package?
--
Richard
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:33:23AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
> @Andreas: Independently of how this goes for the Debian Policy,
> recommending DEP5 would be a good thing for the policies of Debian
> Science and friends (astro, med).
I have not checked but I'd say every Debian Med package has
Andreas Tille dixit:
>explicit wish to not use DEP5. I wonder what other reasons might exist
>to explicitly stick to the non-machine readable format.
I prefer human-readable format. I also often deal in software which
has more… flexibility than the DEP 5 format allows, or where it is
plain
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:33:23AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes:
> > I would love to see another discussion here to reach more uniformity in
> > Debian packaging and rise importance of DEP5 by recommending it in
> > Debian Policy.
>
> I would really support that. A
Andreas Tille writes:
> I would love to see another discussion here to reach more uniformity in
> Debian packaging and rise importance of DEP5 by recommending it in
> Debian Policy.
I would really support that. A recommendation does not mean that there
may be some exceptional cases where DEP5 is
Andreas Tille writes:
> I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 was
> decided to be good packaging practice and I assumed that not changing to
> DEP5 would be a matter of "not important for me to spent my time on a
> DEP5 conversion". However, I'm reading Thorstens
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:26:42 AM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in a change to UpstreamMetadata in Wiki[1] Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>These fields must still be allowed, as not all packagers wish to use DEP
> 5.
>
> I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5
Hi,
in a change to UpstreamMetadata in Wiki[1] Thorsten Glaser wrote:
These fields must still be allowed, as not all packagers wish to use DEP 5.
I admit I'm astonished about this. From my point of view DEP5 was
decided to be good packaging practice and I assumed that not changing to
DEP5
30 matches
Mail list logo
