Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:34:41 +0100 Jan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/08/2008 05:22 PM, JackTheDipper wrote : ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)... to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g. nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there? Nothing, nless it is modified, then maybe. Typically, upstream, it is: install-sh - /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh (A modified install-sh is rare - if there is a difference it may simply be an old version rather than a modified script.) Do you know about the script licensecheck? It's contained in the devscripts package. I just stumbled upon it some time ago. Running $ licensecheck install-sh gives install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like) If I am not mistaken, you have to cite the whole license anyway in debian/copyright... Not quite. Generated / symlinked files do not need to be included (otherwise every autotools package would have to declare the BSD licence.) I suppose it would be nice if licensecheck had an option to ignore such files but this is easier upstream than in the actual package because the autotools will convert the upstream symlink into a real file for obvious reasons. licensecheck is v.v.useful but it is mostly used for the source directory. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpo8BFIGV3fy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: smplayer - complete front-end for MPlayer
Addressed the issues mentioned. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: gnomecatalog
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomecatalog. * Package name: gnomecatalog Version : 0.3.1-1.0 That '.0' at the end isn't necessary. Lintian notify a warning without it. I can remove it if you want Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] * License : [fill in] *cough* It builds these binary packages: gnomecatalog - Cataloging software for CD, DVD, and hard disk files Do you have a long description? Long description Cataloging software for CDs and DVDs. Catalog your dvds/cds and files. Generate thumbnails of the files in your disks via gnome thumbnailers and saves it for using in database. Save the metadata of the files. You can search in the metatada of mp3, avis, images (exif). Requirements This application requires GTK+ version 2.8.x. Other dependencies include: python-gtk2 (2.3.96), python-pyvorbis, python-pysqlite2, python-gnome2, python-mmpython Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gnomecatalog
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomecatalog. * Package name: gnomecatalog Version : 0.3.1-1.0 That '.0' at the end isn't necessary. Lintian notify a warning without it. I can remove it if you want The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the correct fix. Is this the NMU warning? You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as you use in debian/control. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RFS: azr3-jack
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package azr3-jack. * Package name: azr3-jack Version : 1.0.2-1 Upstream Author : Lars Luthman [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://ll-plugins.nongnu.org/azr3/ * License : GPL Section : sound It builds these binary packages: azr3-jack - A Hammond organ simulator The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/azr3-jack - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/azr3-jack/azr3-jack_1.0.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Lars Luthman signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
JackTheDipper wrote: Holger Levsen wrote: ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic: # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package. # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality. # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available. 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is not approriate for legalize. 2. It doesn't allow modifications - not suited for Debian main. It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the file file bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :( This is indeed a wide-spread problem. The maintainer of the debian package of intltool (jordi) has already been notified and a bug against GNOME's intltool has been filed ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508320 ). As I'm not allowed to change the license on my own and due to the fact that (almost?) all internationalized GNOME projects and many more are shipping with this file - also the corresponding debian packages - , i guess, this bug shouldn't prevent this package from being uploaded. I don't know if a lintian rule would be good to tell all packagers to fix the license (once a fixed version is available) or if it's enough to just wait for fixed GNOME projects. Any other comments on this package or is it ready now? Werner P.S.: The mentioned gpl utility is NOT by the FSF but belongs to the autotools package, sorry (see http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~iam/docs/tutorial.html , section Invoking the `gpl' utility for more information). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gnomecatalog
On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomecatalog. * Package name: gnomecatalog Version : 0.3.1-1.0 That '.0' at the end isn't necessary. Lintian notify a warning without it. I can remove it if you want The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the correct fix. Is this the NMU warning? You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as you use in debian/control. Many thanks. I have correct the issue. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnomecatalog/ Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:17:59 +0100 JackTheDipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JackTheDipper wrote: Holger Levsen wrote: ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic: # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package. # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality. # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available. 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing is not approriate for legalize. 2. It doesn't allow modifications - not suited for Debian main. It is perfectly acceptable in main - that phrase refers to the fact that the code is licenced, not public domain. Free software does not have to be freely available in terms of change without any restrictions - changes to GPL software is specifically allowed ONLY under the strict copyleft restrictions of the GPL. change without restriction would allow GPL software to be made proprietary, as can be done with public domain code. If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see this notice: # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext # functionality. # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain. This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpOBPNXzHT4X.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:36 +0100 JackTheDipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while debian/copyright says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, Public domain code is compatible with the GPL but the reverse is not true. You can include public domain code in any project, free or not. I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed Makefile.am at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do. If you are the sole copyright holder for these files, it is probably best to use a genuine GPL notice in the file instead. ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says it's based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the result under the GPL(2+).) Yes, you can. Again, you cannot do the reverse. LGPL is weaker than GPL and combining code into one project migrates all code to the strongest compatible licence. The LGPL and GPL are carefully managed to remain compatible in this manner. IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok. The FSF says: Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well. source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-8 Correct. And, btw this feels strange when reading it: # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to give unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-) heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that free software is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh* If it's your own file, put a proper GPL notice in place of this. It does sound unnecessary. ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced and not just refer to the software licence. ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok. Usually, all po files just say released under the same licence as the package itself. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpPPhMyaGujY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: gnomecatalog
El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 18:24 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno escribió: On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomecatalog. * Package name: gnomecatalog Version : 0.3.1-1.0 That '.0' at the end isn't necessary. Lintian notify a warning without it. I can remove it if you want The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the correct fix. Is this the NMU warning? You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as you use in debian/control. Many thanks. I have correct the issue. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnomecatalog/ Hi José, just a couple of questions: - Compiling the package on debian sid, it fails because of the python stuff in debian/rules. You're forcing using python 2.5 in debian/rules but there's not such build-dependency. Removing the DEB_PYTHON_COMPILE_VERSION = 2.5 line, the package compiles perfectly with 2.4, so I don't understand that line. Anyway , the package does not follow current Debian Python policy, you should take a look to http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy. For this package, current Python policy is quite simple so you should not have any problem to fix it, if you have some questions don't doubt in asking to this list. I would recommend you using python-support as replacing dh_python by python-support is trivial. - Your postinst is maintaining some old debhelper generated code and it should be deleted. In fact, you can test that this is all you need in the file: #!/bin/sh #DEBHELPER# - Please, remove the commented lines in debian/rules as they're useless. - I've seen you have not a spanish comment in the .desktop file of the application. According to your name it seems you can add it :-). If not, tell it to me and I'll send the right spanish sentence to you. Regards. José L. signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: RFS: gnomecatalog
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:14:50PM +0100, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 18:24 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno escribió: On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gnomecatalog. * Package name: gnomecatalog Version : 0.3.1-1.0 Hi José, just a couple of questions: - Your postinst is maintaining some old debhelper generated code and it should be deleted. In fact, you can test that this is all you need in the file: #!/bin/sh #DEBHELPER# If the postinst can be generated from scratch by debhelper, then just remove it entirely. It's sufficiently intelligent to eg. add set -e in that case (I don't know if that would happen with a shebang+template maintscripts). Justin
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost... The subject was libcwd: one or two packages?. The Message-ID was [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm replying to a local CC now). Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both posts that I mailed to this list not appear on the list? This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates like 90% of all spam that I get, and on the other hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/. May I suggest to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and always allow all posts by subscribers? -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On 09/01/2008, Carlo Wood wrote: My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost... The subject was libcwd: one or two packages?. The Message-ID was [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm replying to a local CC now). Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both posts that I mailed to this list not appear on the list? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00011.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00013.html Note that you can request to be whitelisted. See “whitelist” on http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates like 90% of all spam that I get, and on the other hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/. May I suggest to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and always allow all posts by subscribers? Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpc4q4RCZ8xf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:43PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies). The way it is now, MY spam filters assign a value of +24 to mail from debian-mentors@lists.debian.org as auto white list, because the ammount of average spam is SO freaking high, that basically it assumes everything is... That can't be a good thing. (My threshold for spam +5). The only reason I see this mail is because it has 'libcwd' in the Subject line :p I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content. Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please? -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
Hallo! Du (Carlo Wood) hast geschrieben: [ftr again: the outburst of spam yesterday happened accidently and should be fixed now.] I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content. i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list, check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send us a message: To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us with more information. Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible) * the IP, * the Time (including timezone), * the Message-Id, * the Adresses you sent from and to, * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem. We maintain a system with more than 15 subscribers which gets and sends a lot more than 100 Mails a day, without that information we have no chance to find out what went wrong. Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe. Yours, Cord, Debian Listmaster of the day -- http://lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core
On 09/01/2008, at 1.45, Charles Plessy wrote: For the copyright files, you may be interested by the proposed machine-parsable format described in the following link. Although no parser has been written yet, it could be useful to start to use it: http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat A very interesting proposal! I will certainly start to use that format. About the manpages, many thanks for writing them. Have you considered submitting them upstream ? Yes, I will send them. I wrote the man pages because I first included the example programs in the package as binaries. However, I later decided that they were not really robust enough to justify their presence as real applications. So I kept the manpages, but put them with the examples. I have a few comments specific to btk-core: - why providing libbtk-core-dev but not libbtk-core ? Upstream does not build shared libraries, so there is no need for it. I have chosen not to build shared libraries, because I would have to choose a soname, and if upstream at some point decides to offer a shared library, we could be in trouble. - libbtk-core-dev should probably be in the libdevel section. Yes it could. Upstream defines the intended audience as Developers, Science/Research. I assumed the package would appeal more to scientists than ordinary developers, so I chose the science category. I have no strong opinions on the matter, however. - in your changelog, a colon is missing: (Closes: #459753) Fixed. - how about packaging the docs as well ? I assume you mean the doxygen documentation. I seem to remember I had problems generating it, so I let it be, but I can take another look at it. Of course the documentation should be available to the programmer! Cheers, Morten PS: I am quite often on IRC. If anyone wants to chat, I will be in #debian-med and #debian-mentors whenever possible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core
Le Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:58:09PM +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard a écrit : - libbtk-core-dev should probably be in the libdevel section. Yes it could. Upstream defines the intended audience as Developers, Science/Research. I assumed the package would appeal more to scientists than ordinary developers, so I chose the science category. I have no strong opinions on the matter, however. I have no strong opinion about this either. But note that the source package can be in section Science and the -dev package in the libdevel section. Also, once born the package will be debtagged, see http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/todo.html?maint=debian-med-packaging%40lists.alioth.debian.org Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RFS: nettee
Hi Cyril, I have made the suggestions that you show me. Thank You. ps: I'm still needing a sponsor :( On Wed Jan 09 08 02:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 09/01/2008, Joel Franco wrote: I do not understand what means serverstats or webissues in lenny/sid. Where can i read about it? apt-get source one or the other, then look at debian/copyright. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois -- | | Joel Franco Guzmán .''`. | self-powered by : :' : | Debian Linux `. `' | `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RFS: nettee
Test. On Wed Jan 09 08 02:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 09/01/2008, Joel Franco wrote: I do not understand what means serverstats or webissues in lenny/sid. Where can i read about it? apt-get source one or the other, then look at debian/copyright. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois -- | | Joel Franco Guzmán .''`. | self-powered by : :' : | Debian Linux `. `' | `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libcwd: one or two packages?
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:26:15PM +, Cord Beermann wrote: i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list, check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send us a message: To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us with more information. Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible) * the IP, I sent it to a smart host. The routing should be same as any other message that I sent (as well as this one). * the Time (including timezone), I sent my third message at 10 Jan 03:41:02 CET, that is 02:41:02 UTC. * the Message-Id, The Message-ID was: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note how it contains the time in UTC. * the Adresses you sent from and to, I sent this message to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org of course, and from [EMAIL PROTECTED] * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem. I have subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] around 02:29:46 UTC, just before sending my last message. This did not help. Since all my other mails got through, it has to be something in the body of the message, possibly the URL that I have in it. However, that you'd /dev/null messages of SUBSCRIBED people who are even on the whitelist, would be behond me - so I reall don't know what to think of it. http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe. Done, thus. Didn't help. -- Carlo Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see this notice: # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions. It can # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext # functionality. # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain. This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version. Well, I'm not disagreeing with what was clearly upstream's *intent*, but that notice by itself does not grant any permission to modify that file. You're assuming that it's covered by the GPL, and I expect upstream is assuming that too, but the notice doesn't actually *say* that. I think it's buggy wording rather than a problematic license, but the wording is buggy. I expect upstream really intends something more like the license Automake uses. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
