Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 18:17:35) > > > Sorry, I never had the impression that you meant for our > > conversation to be kept secret - only that you found it a more > > convenient platform. > > Aren't you the person signing all their mail with explicit consent? > Considering that, I find it hard to believe that you don't know the > concept of explicit consent to publication of written words. True, my email footer contains "quote me freely". But no, that does not imply that I consider any and all emails or chat message without such explicit statement should me considered as having the opposite implicit intent. > I would welcome it very much if we could get back to technical > discussions and, if asked a simple question via a Medium you > officially promote on your website, you give a simple answer in the > future. You did not find my answer on that medium simple? Then let me try again - in this public medium where I am more willing to doing more elaborate writing, because there is a higher chance that my writing efforts reach an audience finding it valuable: I have a private life, and I have a professional life, and I have a life with Debian. My life with Debian overlaps to some extend both my private and my professional lives, but to a very large extend my Debian life is done in public - and I prefer to keep it that way. So when someone contacts me at mediums/platforms tied to my professional work or my private person, I routinely request that the conversation please be moved to a public medium/platform. I don't do that blindly - there are few types of conversations relevant to keep discrete - either for a shorter period of time or maybe forever - maybe because they are personally damaging or organisationally damaging or for other reasons. For your simple question of "How do I proceed?" I answered "Please use email and our public bugtracker, not discrete methods like this". > I don't think that that is too much to ask for in a setting > where everyone donates their free time and not want to waste time > writing full blown mails to everyone and there dog for a quick > question no one will care about later. Email is pretty much the default medium in Debian - used for bugtracking and discussion and voting. Matrix is very much not default nor officially existing in Debian. Therefore, if email is painful for you, then... Whatever. > While you are technically correct on this issue, I consider it > socially inadequate to not point me to the issue you knew of very well > when you had the chance. I didn't point you to our bugtracker? You couldn't be bothered to read the 2 (two) bugs against the package you wanted to work on, but you complain that I didn't do that work on your behalf? > Maybe if we can agree that there are more helpful ways to interact > right from the start, we could find a way forward in the other bug > report I perfectly agree. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
> Sorry, I never had the impression that you meant for our conversation to > be kept secret - only that you found it a more convenient platform. Aren't you the person signing all their mail with explicit consent? Considering that, I find it hard to believe that you don't know the concept of explicit consent to publication of written words. I would welcome it very much if we could get back to technical discussions and, if asked a simple question via a Medium you officially promote on your website, you give a simple answer in the future. I don't think that that is too much to ask for in a setting where everyone donates their free time and not want to waste time writing full blown mails to everyone and there dog for a quick question no one will care about later. While you are technically correct on this issue, I consider it socially inadequate to not point me to the issue you knew of very well when you had the chance. Maybe if we can agree that there are more helpful ways to interact right from the start, we could find a way forward in the other bug report -nik
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 17:53:48) > > For the record this conversation began in a Matrix chatroom like > > this: > > Thanks for sharing conversations I did not consent to make public to a > public forum. I will seek legal advice on that. Sorry, I never had the impression that you meant for our conversation to be kept secret - only that you found it a more convenient platform. Debian has access to legal counceling pro-bono. You might consider asking our leader about that. > For the record: > > * I asked on Matrix to get a quick "Go" or "Stop", no more, no less. > You refused to give me a quick answer, which would have been helpful, > instead of asking me to waste time on a far more elaborate means of > communication for a quick question no one else cares about > > * I did ask the same question by mail after you refused to give a > simple answer. You chose not to respond to that either. A quick "Stop, > you will need to fix the other bug first" would have been helpful, > instead of waiting until I wasted hours of work on your package > > Now, never mind, I will not waste more time on your package. I will > just make a new package for my needs, and if anyone asks why we need > two, I will point them to this conversation. I am happy you see a use for our conversation being public. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Hi Jonas, > For the record this conversation began in a Matrix chatroom like this: Thanks for sharing conversations I did not consent to make public to a public forum. I will seek legal advice on that. For the record: * I asked on Matrix to get a quick "Go" or "Stop", no more, no less. You refused to give me a quick answer, which would have been helpful, instead of asking me to waste time on a far more elaborate means of communication for a quick question no one else cares about * I did ask the same question by mail after you refused to give a simple answer. You chose not to respond to that either. A quick "Stop, you will need to fix the other bug first" would have been helpful, instead of waiting until I wasted hours of work on your package Now, never mind, I will not waste more time on your package. I will just make a new package for my needs, and if anyone asks why we need two, I will point them to this conversation. Thanks for being such a pedantic^Wvery helpful fellow contributor! -nik
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Hi Dominik, Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 16:15:10) > > Sorry, but I consider the NMU as drafted useless since it does not > > account for release-critical bug#975120. > my question for feedback is about this bug, not some other bugs. Yes, I understand that you would prefer to work on fixing this bug, disregarding other bugs in this package. Due to the entanglements of this bug with another bug I however find it unreasonable to work on this one in isolation. Hence my conclusion that your work in isolation is of no use a.k.a. useless. I shall respect your wish to not care about other bugs, but that means I cannot explain to you how things are entangled - because that is not possible without bringing your attention to that other bug. > If it is a requirement to solve all issues with your package to get a > single bug fixed, then sorry, I find that unacceptable. Duly noted. For the record, your decribed requirement does not reflect my position on the matter. > If "useless" is everything you have to say about the work of a > contributor, then please reconsider your involvement in a community of > developers. I have more to say to contributors in general, but frankly your attitude does not positively excite me for continued dialogue with you in particular. For the record this conversation began in a Matrix chatroom like this: >> Hi! I would like to work on >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=972409 >> How should I proceed? Send a debdiff to the BTS, or just "do and >> upload" collab-maint style? > Please use email and our public bugtracker, not discrete methods like > this. >> I am not discussing anything technical concerning the bug >> But if you want to start out that way: Please move your packaging >> from GitHub (a discriminatory platform that explicitly locks out some >> Debian contributors!) to our non-discriminatory Salsa > Make your demands in public >> You do refuse to answer a simple question (am I ok to implement the >> request in this bug or not?) if I do not send it by mail? >> Are you aware that I offered to do your work for you? Do you always >> treat fellow contributors who offer to do wokr YOU requested to be >> done that way? > I most certainly welcome your question and look forward to answering > it I continue to welcome questions but please change the tone or I might loose interest. > Are you able to provide feedback concerning the questions at hand, on > top of judging the work I do because you ignored it for several years? I am unable to parse the above as anything but a pile of insults and wrong assumptions. But let me try anyway... Yes, I am not disabled. Yes, I already provided feedback on the questions at hand - maybe not the feedback you hoped for, but feedback nonetheless. Yes, you asked me to judge your work so that is what I did - again maybe not how you hoped for, but... No, you are mistaken that I have ignored this package for several years. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
> Sorry, but I consider the NMU as drafted useless since it does not > account for release-critical bug#975120. Thanks for your kind words. As can be seen by the fact that we are communicating in this bug report, my question for feedback is about this bug, not some other bugs. Looking at the Maintainer field of the package, it also seems this is **your** package. If it is a requirement to solve all issues with your package to get a single bug fixed, then sorry, I find that unacceptable. If "useless" is everything you have to say about the work of a contributor, then please reconsider your involvement in a community of developers. Are you able to provide feedback concerning the questions at hand, on top of judging the work I do because you ignored it for several years? Thanks, Nik
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Hi Dominik, Quoting Dominik George (2021-10-05 14:49:52) > the attached diff to the dbeian/ directory adds the RDF/Turtle, > RDF/XML, and JSON formatted files to the package. It seems your work is based on same non-source, despite bug#975120. > The package is not ready to upload yet, because I need to align > d/copyright with the new upstream verison. Sorry, but I see little relevancy in how you track non-source files. > Before I get down to updating d/copyright (quite a few additions > upstream…), I ask the maintainer to approve of the changes to how the > package is built. Sorry, but I consider the NMU as drafted useless since it does not account for release-critical bug#975120. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#972409: spdx-licenses diff for #972409
Hi, the attached diff to the dbeian/ directory adds the RDF/Turtle, RDF/XML, and JSON formatted files to the package. The package is not ready to upload yet, because I need to align d/copyright with the new upstream verison. Please note that in order to keep the file list in d/install maintainable, I chose to change from explicitly listing each file there to installing the full directories. The intention of listing the single files was to not install any license texts missing in d/copyright, which IMHO is wrong because d/copyright is about the source package, rather than the binary package. So I removed the general wildcard from d/copyright, so that now we can rely on lintian reporting missing files: W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/389-exception.txt W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/AAL.txt W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/ANTLR-PD-fallback.txt W: spdx-licenses source: file-without-copyright-information debian/copyright text/ANTLR-PD.txt […] Before I get down to updating d/copyright (quite a few additions upstream…), I ask the maintainer to approve of the changes to how the package is built. -nik diff -Npru spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/README.Debian spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/README.Debian --- spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/README.Debian 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/README.Debian 2021-10-05 13:50:46.395165638 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +The Debian version of the JSON format files has the detailsUrl field +changed to point to the relative paths within the Debian package. The +original values are linking to https://spdx.org/licenses/*.json. + + -- Dominik George , Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:50:46 +0200 diff -Npru spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/changelog spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/changelog --- spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/changelog 2021-04-07 09:12:25.0 +0200 +++ spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/changelog 2021-10-05 14:18:31.688460612 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,19 @@ +spdx-licenses (3.14+dfsg-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * Include JSON and RDF formats. (Closes: #972409) ++ Rework d/install and d/copyright to ease tracking of + license files; i.e. install by glob, and remove wildcard + from d/copyright to make lintian complain on new files + instead of tracking each file in d/install. ++ Add README.Debian describing differences in the data + files in Debian. ++ Build-Depend on jq and xml-twig-tools to rebuild compiled + license files for JSON and RDF formats. + * Align d/watch with new GitHub tag URLs. + + -- Dominik George Tue, 05 Oct 2021 13:29:29 +0200 + spdx-licenses (3.8+dfsg-3) unstable; urgency=medium * friendly takeover; diff -Npru spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/control spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/control --- spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/control 2021-04-07 09:09:38.0 +0200 +++ spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/control 2021-10-05 14:15:23.946432016 +0200 @@ -2,7 +2,10 @@ Source: spdx-licenses Section: doc Priority: optional Maintainer: Jonas Smedegaard -Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 12) +Build-Depends: + debhelper-compat (= 12), + jq, + xml-twig-tools Standards-Version: 4.5.0 Vcs-Browser: https://github.com/Debian/spdx-licenses Vcs-Git: https://github.com/Debian/spdx-licenses.git @@ -18,4 +21,7 @@ Description: Collection of license data and provided by SPDX Workgroup, a Linux Foundaition Project. This package makes most of these license texts available to Debian systems. . + In addition to the license texts, the collection data ist supplied in + JSON and RDF formats. + . Note: License texts have NOT been evaluated against DFSG. diff -Npru spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/copyright spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/copyright --- spdx-licenses-3.8+dfsg/debian/copyright 2020-12-05 03:33:11.0 +0100 +++ spdx-licenses-3.14+dfsg/debian/copyright 2021-10-05 14:03:05.842506105 +0200 @@ -2,87 +2,99 @@ Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packa Upstream-Name: license-list-data Upstream-Contact: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data/issues Source: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-data -Files-Excluded: website template html json jsonld rd* - -Files: * +Files-Excluded: website template html jsonld rdfa rdfnt + rdfturtle/licenses.turtle + rdfxml/licenses.rdf + +Files: CONTRIBUTING.md + README.md + accessingLicenses.md + licenses.md + json/exceptions.json + json/licenses.json Copyright: 2020 SPDX Workgroup 2016 Gary O'Neall License: CC-BY-3.0 Files: debian/* Copyright: 2020 Michael Lustfield + 2021 Dominik George License: CC-BY-3.0 -Files: text/0BSD.txt +Files: json/exceptions/* +License: none +Comment: Used in combination with licenses + +Files: */0BSD.* Copyright: 2006 Rob Landley License: none -Files: text/Abstyles.txt +Files: */Abstyles.* Copyright: 1991, 1992 Hans-Hermann
