Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
Hi, I've updated the package according to my previous answers, with additional decisions for some points: On Feb 5, 2008 5:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your shlibs says = 0.1.7 but the max version in your symbols file is 0.1.6. The shlibdeps was bumped to 0.1.7 by Loïc Minier in 0.1.8-1, because 0.1.7 is safer to link with than 0.1.6 (the etch version), as many private symbols had been removed. Meanwhile. the symbols file just reflects the fact that the symbols are also available in the etch version. If it's to be changed, I'd rather bump the versions in the symbols file to 0.1.7 and ignore etch completely. Would there be any drawback in doing so? I decided to bump the minver in symbols file to 0.1.7, so that the safer versions in lenny/sid are preferred, according to what stated in shlibs. Please rewrite the descriptions considering the audience for each of them. libthai0/libthai-data will always be automatically installed, libthai-dev will sometimes be automatically installed (build-dep) and libthai-doc should be only installed by humans. libthai0/-data could have a one-line description, the amount of info in the -dev and -doc descriptions should reflect who will be looking for them. I find this guideline for library description good, although I don't see an example of such package yet. I'll try to follow it. I have shortened only libthai-data, as it's still unclear whether libthai0 is always automatically installed, as kdelibs contains some code that tries to dlopen libthai if present. And KDE users are required to manually install libthai as an enhancement in order to get proper Thai support. Currently, the required subpackage is libthai-dev, which is weird, as users are required to install a dev package without any needs to compile programs. But KLibLoader's requirement of *.la to dlopen libs just mandates that. But this will change when KDE 4 arrives. Only libthai0 will be required, if the proposed patch is accepted. (For KDE 3, a better option to have explicit link seems to be frowned upon. See Bug #444284.) When it's done, the manually installed package will be libthai0 instead. So, I can't definitely claim that libthai0 is always automatically installed. (For GNOME, it is.) Please find the summarized changes in the updated package (with version unchanged): http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libthai/libthai_0.1.9-2.dsc Thanks, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/
Re: RFS: (3 packages)
Hi, Sorry for the delay. I'll have a look at these, hopefully today. If anyone is faster, don't wait for me, though. ;-) On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:04:39PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.4.1-1 of my package qterm. On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08:33AM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8-2 of my package lunar-applet. On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 02:11:42PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package libgcl. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
CFLAGS
Hi, I'm wondering how to use CFLAGS properly debian/rules. I guess it really is a newbie question... I read http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html . dh- make currently does show how to set CFLAGS, but not how to pass it on. In one of my packages, I do that (basically): 888- debian/rules CFLAGS = -Wall -g -O2 CC = gcc $(CFLAGS) build: $(MAKE) CC=$(CC) 888888- where upstream Makefile looks like: 888- Makefile all: zerofree.c $(CC) -o zerofree -lext2fs zerofree.c 888888- fakerrot debian/rules build then does the Right Thing(TM): gcc -Wall -g -O2 -o zerofree -lext2fs zerofree.c Is my approach correct ? shouldn't it be exemplified by dh-make? Best regards, Thibaut. PGP.sig Description: Ceci est une signature électronique PGP
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: blurbs-missing-in-licence Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. Please revert that, sorry for the noise. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's to be changed, I'd rather bump the versions in the symbols file to 0.1.7 and ignore etch completely. Would there be any drawback in doing so? Sounds fine given the private symbols stuff. For the standard This program is free software... text, I think it's equally right to either add or to not add them. To be sure, I can add them as you suggest anyway. Reading the proposal, it looks clear that they should not be added, sorry about that. I think there are supposed to be commas between the authors and each author should have their own copyright years? I think we need to clarify what each copyright holder in the proposal means: Suggested format: free content, one line per copyright holder ... Isn't that right? I'm sorry that I did not see this, that is fine. I find this guideline for library description good, although I don't see an example of such package yet. warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one example of such a pair of descriptions. So, I'll upload once you remove the licence blurb I wrongly asked you to add. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: blurbs-missing-in-licence Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. Please revert that, sorry for the noise. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 6:07 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find this guideline for library description good, although I don't see an example of such package yet. warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one example of such a pair of descriptions. Thanks. I hope my similar modification is fine. So, I'll upload once you remove the licence blurb I wrongly asked you to add. Uploaded: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libthai/libthai_0.1.9-2.dsc For cross-checking, the date and time for the debian/changelog should be: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:20:09 +0700 Thanks, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 6:27 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: blurbs-missing-in-licence Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. Please revert that, sorry for the noise. Done and uploaded: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swath/swath_0.3.2-1.dsc The debian/changelog date/time is: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:34:24 +0700 Other changes left? Thanks, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 8:30 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one example of such a pair of descriptions. Thanks. I hope my similar modification is fine. Yep, it is. So, I'll upload once you remove the licence blurb I wrongly asked you to add. Uploaded: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libthai/libthai_0.1.9-2.dsc Uploaded. BTW, something I missed until now, are you sure the libthai0 - libthai-data is OK to leave unversioned? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On 06/02/2008, Paul Wise wrote: Well, I just checked the Vcs-* links, they seem to point to upstream rather than the Debian packaging. They also have a debian dir in them that doesn't seem to be updated. For the record, some reasons for asking upstream not to include a debian/ directory in the released tarballs: http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/on_debian_directories_in_upstream_tarballs/ Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgp49SYfPwkUQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: thailatex (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 4:15 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got another idea to solve this: just drop babel.sty from thailatex, and copy it from texlive-latex-base with edition on postinst. Also remove it on prerm. Done, and updated with version unchanged: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/thailatex/thailatex_0.4.2-3.dsc Please comment if it still requires additional changes. I'm not so sure if this is OK, what do the texlive Debian people say? The change in the postinst looks fairly simple, perhaps it could be integrated into texlive? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 8:41 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Done and uploaded: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swath/swath_0.3.2-1.dsc Uploaded, please contact this list for future uploads. Other changes left? For next time: Well, I just checked the Vcs-* links, they seem to point to upstream rather than the Debian packaging. They also have a debian dir in them that doesn't seem to be updated. Also these lintian -I: I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:69 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:76 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:81 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:87 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:94 -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 8:28 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uploaded. Thanks a lot. BTW, something I missed until now, are you sure the libthai0 - libthai-data is OK to leave unversioned? Yes. The dictionary is independent part from the algorithm. It will have versioned dependency if the data format is changed. Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 9:20 PM, Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, some reasons for asking upstream not to include a debian/ directory in the released tarballs: http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/on_debian_directories_in_upstream_tarballs/ It's not included. For swath, 'make dist' already excludes debian/ subdir from the tarball. Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: thailatex (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 9:23 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not so sure if this is OK, what do the texlive Debian people say? The change in the postinst looks fairly simple, perhaps it could be integrated into texlive? Again, I think that would cause kind of dangling pointer, and would make texlive-latex-base depend on thailatex for the missing part. With upstream thailatex's hat on, I agree with Norbert Preining's previous comment that it should be eventually merged into upstream babel. And that's actually thailatex's final goal. Regards, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)
On Feb 6, 2008 9:10 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uploaded, please contact this list for future uploads. Thank you. For next time: Well, I just checked the Vcs-* links, they seem to point to upstream rather than the Debian packaging. They also have a debian dir in them that doesn't seem to be updated. In fact, I'm also maintaining upstream source. And debian/* is also maintained at the same CVS. It wasn't updated just because I hadn't committed debian changes yet. Now it's updated. Also these lintian -I: I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:69 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:76 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:81 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:87 I: swath: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/swath.1.gz:94 Yep. I found these messages, too. But it's better fixed upstream instead. Thanks, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFR: meritous
On 06/02/2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote: OK. Specifying a fixed subject. And uploaded. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpH9PcddM6mO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Copyright question
Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? Regards, Jean -- Nul ne sera condamné pour des actions ou omissions qui, au moment où elles ont été commises, ne constituaient pas un acte délictueux d'après le droit national ou international. De même, il ne sera infligé aucune peine plus forte que celle qui était applicable au moment où l'acte délictueux a été commis. Article 11.2. Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme - No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 11.2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights begin:vcard fn:Jean Parpaillon n:Parpaillon;Jean org:Kerlabs adr:;;;Rennes;;;France email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:+33 2 99 84 25 99 tel;cell:+33 6 80 32 73 85 version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Copyright question
On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses, BSD-3 (without point 3.) isn't a problem. The advertising requirement (3.) is a problem, though. Note that if a package isn't DFSG-free, it can't go to contrib either. Contrib is for DFSG-free material depending on non-free (or contrib in turn) stuff, see Policy 2.2.2. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpEMeCiAgb5l.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package zerofree. Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This package is unrelated to the work I usually do with my sponsor Christoph Haas, which is why I prefer to ask here rather than to him. * Package name: zerofree Version : 1.0.1 Upstream Author : Ron Yorston * URL : http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/uml/ * License : GPL-2+ Programming Lang: C ITP : http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi? bug=462091 Section : admin Description: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems Zerofree finds the unallocated, non-zeroed blocks in an ext2 or ext3 file-system and fills them with zeroes. This is useful if the device on which this file-system resides is a disk image. In this case, depending on the type of disk image, a secondary utility may be able to reduce the size of the disk image after zerofree has been run. . The usual way to achieve the same result (zeroing the unallocated blocks) is to run dd do create a file full of zeroes that takes up the entire free space on the drive, and then delete this file. This has many disadvantages, which zerofree alleviates: * it is slow; * it makes the disk image (temporarily) grow to its maximal extent; * it (temporarily) uses all free space on the disk, so other concurrent write actions may fail. . Zerofree has been written to be run from GNU/Linux systems installed as guest OSes inside a virtual machine. If this is not your case, you almost certainly don't need this package. The package appears to be lintian and linda clean. The upload would fix this bugs: 462091 (ITP) The package can be found on my personal repository: - URL: http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~paumard/debian/pool/main/z/zerofree/ - Source repository: deb-src http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~paumard/ debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/~paumard/debian/pool/main/z/zerofree/ zerofree_1.0.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Thibaut Paumard PGP.sig Description: Ceci est une signature électronique PGP
Re: Copyright question
Hi Jean! You wrote: I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? Why is that probematic? It seems like a default 4-clause BSD license to me. Should be fine, unless you intend to link it against GPL code. Kind regards, Bas. -- +--+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, | || The bridall of the earth and skie: | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight;| +|For thou must die. | +-+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question
This one time, at band camp, Cyril Brulebois said: On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. The advertising requirement (3.) is a problem, though. No. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon: Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? IANAL, but this license doesn't seem to allow modification, does it? Cheers, Stefan. pgpbm8JB1FbPp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question
On 06/02/2008, Sebastian Harl wrote: Just to make this clear […] Yep, thank you (all) for clarifying that, sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpyGch4L5nAE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question
Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:23PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses, BSD-3 (without point 3.) isn't a problem. The advertising requirement (3.) is a problem, though. Just to make this clear: the 4-clause BSD license is not a problem in respect to DFSG-freeness - it's perfectly fine to include BSD 4-clause licensed software in Debian. However, the license is incompatible to the GPL, so you may not mix BSD 4-clause and GPL code. Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian tokkee Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems
Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package zerofree. I have several other packages waiting for me at the moment, so I'm afraid I can't do that (at least not soon). Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This package is unrelated to the work I usually do with my sponsor Christoph Haas, which is why I prefer to ask here rather than to him. In that case, I think it is not appropriate to set the field. It should be set in an upload by someone who has seen more work of you (if possible on that package), and who trusts you with it. I'm not saying you can't be trusted with this package. It may be fine to have the field, I wouldn't know. But that's exactly the point. ;-) So I'd advise to get a sponsor who will upload new versions at least 2 or 3 times before adding the flag. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package libx86, which I want to adopt. It builds these binary packages: libx86-1 - x86 real-mode library libx86-dbg - x86 real-mode library - debugging symbols libx86-dev - x86 real-mode library - development files Wrt the previous version, this one has the -dbg package added. Moreover, the source has been repackaged because the upstream tarball contained debian/ and precompiled binaries (which created problems during dpkg-source's diffs) The package is lintian (from unstable) clean. The upload would fix the ITA bug #459900 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libx86/libx86_0.99-2+ds1.dsc The package is also maintained under collab-maint: - http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/collab-maint/deb-maint/libx86/trunk/?rev=0sc=0 - svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-maint/deb-maint/libx86/trunk/ I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards David Paleino -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems
Le 6 févr. 08 à 19:47, Bas Wijnen a écrit : Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This package is unrelated to the work I usually do with my sponsor Christoph Haas, which is why I prefer to ask here rather than to him. In that case, I think it is not appropriate to set the field. It should be set in an upload by someone who has seen more work of you (if possible on that package), and who trusts you with it. I'm not saying you can't be trusted with this package. It may be fine to have the field, I wouldn't know. But that's exactly the point. ;-) That's also why I mentioned it :-) Just to make it clear: it's OK for me if a sponsor removes the field and uploads. I can also of course do it myself if a prospective sponsor asks me to. Regards, Thibaut. PGP.sig Description: Ceci est une signature électronique PGP
Re: Copyright question
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:31PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote: Hi, Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon: Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. 4. The name of the University, the name of the Laboratory, or the names of its contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific written permission. I've read DFSG and I'm not sure if items 3 and 4 are problematic. Can someone help me ? If it's not ok, may it be in contrib ? IANAL, but this license doesn't seem to allow modification, does it? Good point. Which brings us to the next point: this is really a question for -legal. I'm sending it there with this mail. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFS: smplayer-themes
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package smplayer-themes. * Package name : smplayer-themes * Version : 0.1.15-1 * Upstream Author : Ricardo Villalba [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://smplayer.sourceforge.net * License : aggregation of independent works under GPL, LGPL, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA * Section : graphics It builds these binary packages: smplayer-themes - complete front-end for MPlayer - icon themes The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 464101, 464415 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/smplayer-themes - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/smplayer-themes/smplayer-themes_0.1.15.dfsg-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Matvey Kozhev signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
RFS: acon (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.5-5 of my package acon. It builds these binary packages: acon - Text console arabization The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 464271 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/acon - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/acon/acon_1.0.5-5.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) -- أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy) Digital design engineer GPG KeyID: 0x9DCA0B27 (@ subkeys.pgp.net) GPG Fingerprint: 087D 3767 8CAC 65B1 8F6C 156E D325 C3C8 9DCA 0B27 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, Thibaut Paumard wrote: Zerofree finds the unallocated, non-zeroed blocks in an ext2 or ext3 file-system and fills them with zeroes. This is useful if the device on How does zerofree avoid race conditions of something trying to use a block it wil zero in the time window (determine block is free, zero block]? -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon a écrit : 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories. Bonjour Jean, This is the advertisement clause of the original BSD licence. Some works in main are or were distributed under this clause, so it is considered DFSG-Free. However, distributors of Debian can easily infringe this clause: for instance, if an hypothetical magazine, Clusterised Linux would sell an issue with a DVD of Debian Lenny and advertise it with a slogan such as Debian Lenny: faster with upgraded kernel and HPL memory distribution, the university of Tenessee could obviously claim that the licence has not been respected because their name has not been cited. This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. But there is a much better solution. The problem has been well explained on FSF's website: http://www.gnu.org//philosophy/bsd.html and importantly, the university of Berkeley from which this licence originates has now abandonned the advertisement clause. This is a strong argument, and with it I was able to obtain the relicencing of a 4-clause-BSD-licenced program by the Whitehead Institute. I think that you have your chances with the university of Tenessee. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian-Med packaging team. Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Upload - imlib - Two bug fixes, including RC bug
Hello, On Mon, 04 Feb 2008, Barry deFreese wrote: I've uploaded a version of imlib that fixes an important and RC bug. If someone has time to review/sponsor. Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2008-02-05, Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've uploaded a version of imlib that fixes an important and RC bug. If someone has time to review/sponsor. You should rather spend your time to get this package removed in favour of imlib2 than kept alive. Unfortunately, this is kind of blocked by kde as the kuickshow package in kde3 uses it. This is not the only one. Here are some relatively commonly used packages by that depend on imlib. icewm fvwm (uses gdk-imlib11) e16menuedit (depends on gdk-imlib11) Regards, Kapil. -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. There is already much software in Debian main with this license and other Debian Developers who do not agree with this and who will continue to include such software in Debian main. (It is, after all specifically called out as a free license in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.) So the practical impact for a Debian derivative of including or not including one more package with the four-clause BSD license is minimal. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Hello, On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package libx86, which I want to adopt. Thanks for this work. This package is quite important for people with laptops! Some remarks: 1. The Ubuntu package seems to have some additional patches are these relevant to Debian? 2. You should perhaps request upstream author to maintain a clean tarball. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: failmalloc
Hi On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:04:08 +0900 Hideki Yamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package failmalloc. * Package name: failmalloc Version : 1.0-1 Upstream Author : Yoshinori K. Okuji mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.nongnu.org/failmalloc/ * License : LGPL Section : libs It builds these binary packages: libfailmalloc-dev - Development files for memory allocation robustness testing preload library libfailmalloc0 - memory allocation robustness testing preload library Just quick review of your diff: - Do you really need to include changed config.sub and config.guess in diff? (hint: delete them in clean) - The usual way is to make Debian packaging under same license as original code is. - Please cleanup debian/rules, eg. Sample debian/rules that uses debhelper. and the version and major crap at the beginning which does not seem to be used at all. - I don't think that debian/libfailmalloc-dev.dirs is needed. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend to include this program in main. There is already much software in Debian main with this license and other Debian Developers who do not agree with this and who will continue to include such software in Debian main. (It is, after all specifically called out as a free license in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.) So the practical impact for a Debian derivative of including or not including one more package with the four-clause BSD license is minimal. Hi Russ, I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should remeber that for other aspects of licencing and intellectual property management, Debian is much more rigorous, so the presence of 4-clauses BSD licences is contradicting the principle of least surprise, that is usually a good guidance. Importantly, the copyright holders of such programs are often not the programmers themselves, but the universities, who nowardays face very strong financial pressures and delegate more and more the management of the intellecutal property to specialised services, who can be ran by people who know nothing about the spirit of free software that blessed the researchers when they wrote their programs. This is why, as a personnal choice, I do not take the responsability of introducing new packages with the BSD advertisement clause in Debian, and I suggest others to refrain as well. Anyway, I really think that there are good chances to obtain a relicencing, that is by far the best way to find a solution that pleases everybody. 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: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should remeber that for other aspects of licencing and intellectual property management, Debian is much more rigorous, so the presence of 4-clauses BSD licences is contradicting the principle of least surprise, that is usually a good guidance. I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable licenses in the DFSG. But regardless, practically speaking, the inclusion of one more or fewer package in main with an advertising clause will make no practical difference for the requirements of any redistributor. Any serious attempt to eliminate this license from Debian would face other challenges first, such as removing OpenSSL from main. Unless someone has a plan to do that, which strikes me as unlikely, I disagree with an implication that including another package with this license would cause any additional problems for Debian redistributors. I have no problem with your other arguments against the 4-clause BSD license. I'm not arguing that it's a good license. But since you were giving advice to someone who is new to licensing issues, I wanted to clarify that including one more package with this license would not cause any noticable hardship for redistributors compared to what they already would need to deal with. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable licenses in the DFSG. The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable license. DFSG URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract §10: 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. That text isn't specific about *which* BSD license is an example of a free license. However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license, which is a copy of the 3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit that it's the version given as an example of a free license. It would perhaps be better for the DFSG to disambiguate BSD license in the text of the DFSG, but the hyperlink to the 3-clause BSD license without advertising clause serves the purpose in this instance. -- \ “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in | `\ trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus | _o__) Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Some packages
On Feb 4, 2008 7:45 PM, Kartik Mistry wrote: My regular sponsors are busy at moment, so if anyone can help to upload following package (or can comment on them for better quality) I will be very thankful. Hi all, I am still looking for sponsor(s) for following packages! The long list has become somewhat smaller (2 packages are done!). chmlib http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/chmlib/chmlib_0.39-7.dsc kphotobymail http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kphotobymail/kphotobymail_0.4.1-2.dsc ldtp http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ldtp/ldtp_0.9.2-3.dsc ldtp-doc http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ldtp-doc/ldtp-doc_0.8-2.dsc pygtkmvc http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pygtkmvc/pygtkmvc_1.2.1-2.dsc pyslide http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyslide/pyslide_0.4-10.dsc tepache http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tepache/tepache_1.1-5.dsc Please look at it, if it fits your requirements, Please upload/comment it. Thanks a lot in advance! -- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ blog.ftbfs.in | kartikm.wordpress.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable license. DFSG URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract §10: 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. That text isn't specific about *which* BSD license is an example of a free license. However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license, which is a copy of the 3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit that it's the version given as an example of a free license. Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the advertising clause in July of 1999 and the DFSG were adopted in July of 1997 according to Wikipedia. Hence, I assumed the BSD license as referred to in the DFSG must, regardless of what the web site currently links to, actually refer to the 4-clause license since that's the only thing that existed at the time. Am I missing something? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : Am I missing something? This ? http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Il giorno Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:18:44 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Hello, Hi, On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package libx86, which I want to adopt. Thanks for this work. This package is quite important for people with laptops! I _do_ have a laptop ;) Some remarks: 1. The Ubuntu package seems to have some additional patches are these relevant to Debian? Yes, they are, I'll add them to the Debian package. Thanks for the pointer! 2. You should perhaps request upstream author to maintain a clean tarball. Well, the package was orphaned because the maintainer seemed MIA. I did not contact him because also the website seemed outdated. Now I see that the Ubuntu changelog is dated Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:15:59 +0100 (from the same Debian maintainer), thus now I believe that he disregarded the Debian package in favour of Ubuntu's one. I'll write him :) Thank you for your suggestions, David P.S.: please do not CC me, I'm subscribed ;) -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
