date:20121212

Re: Photos de ma Mini-Debconf Paris 2012

2012-12-12 Thread Gilles LAMIRAL

Bonjour,

 Boh, on n'est pas trolldi. On va juste dire que c'est casse-pied si on a
 pas ipv6 et on va s'arrêter là.

Oui, quand Fred croise un cul de jatte aveugle il s'arrête 
et lui dit Toi tu n'as pas choisi le bon fournisseur d'accès.


-- 
Au revoir, 09 51 84 42 42
Gilles Lamiral. France, Baulon (35580) 06 20 79 76 06 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50c84ae2.9020...@laposte.net

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Serafeim Zanikolas

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
 These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
 Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[..]

If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic source
package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping programs) and
another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the main package
suggesting the non-free one.

If that's the case, the non-free package has to go through NEW, which means
that the problematic packages will be shipped in wheezy without documentation.
(Which is fine, just making sure we have the same understanding)

-- 
Every great idea is worthless without someone to do the work. --Neil Williams


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121212093012.GD4678@mobee

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Jakub Wilk


* Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic 
source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping 
programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the 
main package suggesting the non-free one.


First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the 
documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or 
moving it into a non-free package is the only option left.


If that's the case, the non-free package has to go through NEW, which 
means that the problematic packages will be shipped in wheezy without 
documentation. (Which is fine, just making sure we have the same 
understanding)


Right, unless the Release Team grants them exceptions.

--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121212094820.ga5...@jwilk.net

Bug#695765: ITP: fsniper -- daemon to run scripts based on changes in files monitored by inotify

2012-12-12 Thread Alex 'AdUser' Z

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alex 'AdUser' Z ad_u...@lavabit.com

* Package name: fsniper
  Version : 1.3.1
  Upstream Author : Andrew Yates, David A. Foster
* URL : https://github.com/l3ib/fsniper
* License : GPL-3+
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : daemon to run scripts based on changes in files monitored 
by inotify

 fsniper is a lightweight daemon, that watches given set fo files and/or
 directories with inotify, and executes commands on inotify events.
 .
 This may be useful for seting up self-managed upload, temp or spool dirs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121212125005.28143.3844.report...@balthasar.home.lan

Re: Bug#695765: ITP: fsniper -- daemon to run scripts based on changes in files monitored by inotify

2012-12-12 Thread Arno Töll

Hi,

On 12.12.2012 13:50, Alex 'AdUser' Z wrote:
  fsniper is a lightweight daemon, that watches given set fo files and/or
  directories with inotify, and executes commands on inotify events.
  .
  This may be useful for seting up self-managed upload, temp or spool dirs.

How is this better/different to incron(d) [1]?

[1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/incron

-- 
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#695765: ITP: fsniper -- daemon to run scripts based on changes in files monitored by inotify

2012-12-12 Thread Alex Z


Arno Töll wrote 2012-12-13 00:19:

Hi,

On 12.12.2012 13:50, Alex 'AdUser' Z wrote:
 fsniper is a lightweight daemon, that watches given set fo files 
and/or

 directories with inotify, and executes commands on inotify events.
 .
 This may be useful for seting up self-managed upload, temp or spool 
dirs.


How is this better/different to incron(d) [1]?

[1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/incron


Well, for me, killer features was (compared to incrond):
  * chain handlers (one event may have multiple handlers, which 
executes untill one returns zero code)

  * built-in filtering support:
* file extension
* mime-type
* filename regexps
  * automatically watch newly created directories
  * written in pure c (instead c++)

All this, except last two may be implemented inside event handler, but 
I'm quite lazy to reinvent wheels. :-)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e00709d3e232fd9465aeeb875beb5...@lavabit.com

Re: Bug#695765: ITP: fsniper -- daemon to run scripts based on changes in files monitored by inotify

2012-12-12 Thread intrigeri

Arno Töll wrote (12 Dec 2012 13:19:14 GMT) :
 How is this better/different to incron(d) [1]?

We also have inoticoming to deal with the simplest case.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85r4mv4bav@boum.org

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Matt Zagrabelny

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote:
 * Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:

 If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
 source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
 programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the main
 package suggesting the non-free one.


 First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the
 documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or moving it
 into a non-free package is the only option left.

A point of clarification: Relicensing can include an additional
license, thus making the documentation dual (or multi) licensed.

-mz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAOLfK3U=7Vkhudr5JDWahH_sBCjz9C=kvpzo_mqnqfds8ko...@mail.gmail.com

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Russ Allbery

Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
 * Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:

 If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
 source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
 programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the
 main package suggesting the non-free one.

 First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the
 documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or
 moving it into a non-free package is the only option left.

It's worth noting that the FSF (which is the largest offender in terms of
using these GFDL terms, at least in my experience) recently put in place a
policy allowing maintainers to remove them.  It apparently isn't part of
the GNU Coding Standards (I know about it from mail to various GNU
software mailing lists), so I don't have a cite, but I believe the rule is
that invariant sections can be removed provided that the manual is shorter
than some number of pages, where the limit is quite long.  The intent was
to allow removal of invariant sections on every manual that was not long
enough that the FSF might want to print it as a book.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8738zb6tmv@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Ubuntu have done it again,

2012-12-12 Thread Gunnar Wolf

Svante Signell dijo [Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 09:52:36AM +0100]:
 Most people I meet (and installing Linux) choose to install some kind of
 Ubuntu distribution. At the same time the number of people installing
 Debian is declining as discussed here lately. Something has gone
 completely wrong with the PR for Debian, suffering from the success of
 derived distributions like Ubuntu. So this little anecdote could, if
 used properly, enhance the perceived value of Debian compared to (one
 of) it's derivatives!

Ok - But do you think that Debian tries to be the *only* answer for al
needs? Being self-touted the universal operating system does not
mean we have to cater for every use case and become the most popular
distribution for every conceivable use. It would be self-defeating, as
becoming better for one target almost implies becoming worse for
another. But we provide a platform for huge numbers of other projects
to build upon and solve their users' needs.

Ubuntu and Mint are one solution path for a particular set of
users. Others might prefer Trisquel and gNewSense. Others will prefer
to run their national or regional distribution. Others (like myself)
will prefer straight Debian. And our work benefits them all.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121212185933.ga50...@gwolf.org

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Jakub Wilk


Status update:


adplug
autoconf2.59
bash
cflow
cgdb
chromium-browser
cpio
ecl
gcc-4.7
gcc-h8300-hms
gcc-snapshot
gcj-4.7
gcl
gforth
gmerlin
gsl
gtypist
kbuild
kdesdk
libbinio
muse-el
readline6
source-highlight
tar
vcdimager
xemacs21-packages


I filed bugs against these:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=jw...@debian.orgtag=gfdl


binutils
gdb
gengetopt
texi2html


I haven't wrapped my head around these yet... I'll try again in a few 
days, unless somebody beats me to it (hint, hint).



groff
mathgl
org-mode
ruby-gsl


These turned out to be false-positives. Sorry for the noise.

--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121212202554.ga5...@jwilk.net

Re: GFDL in main

2012-12-12 Thread Ben Pfaff

Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:

Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the
documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or
moving it into a non-free package is the only option left.

It's worth noting that the FSF (which is the largest offender in terms of
using these GFDL terms, at least in my experience) recently put in place a
policy allowing maintainers to remove them. It apparently isn't part of
the GNU Coding Standards (I know about it from mail to various GNU
software mailing lists), so I don't have a cite, but I believe the rule is
that invariant sections can be removed provided that the manual is shorter
than some number of pages, where the limit is quite long. The intent was
to allow removal of invariant sections on every manual that was not long
enough that the FSF might want to print it as a book.

I believe that the policy is implied by the following section
from the GNU maintainer's guide:

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html#License-Notices-for-Documentation

The section recommends the following notice for documentation:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the
Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being
``GNU General Public License'', with the Front-Cover Texts
being ``A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in
(a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section
entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''.

However, later on it says that the GPL only needs to be included
if the manual is over 400 pages, or if the FSF thinks it might
be a good choice for publishing on paper. It also says, If
your manual is not published by the FSF, and under 400 pages, you
can omit both cover texts. Therefore, a manual that is not
(likely to be?) published on paper, and under 400 pages long, can
omit all invariant sections and cover texts.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87a9tisu50@blp.benpfaff.org

87 matches

Mail list logo