Debian BTS robots.txt
Hi -www! I have noticed that the robots.txt of bugs.debian.org does not allow the Wayback Machine to archive Debian's bugs. It already allows 4 different search engines to view the pages, so I'd imagine that there would be no objection to adding the Wayback Machine. Yours sincerely, Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d9e5cb.2030...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Debian BTS robots.txt
On 31/07/14 17:38, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Riley Baird wrote: I have noticed that the robots.txt of bugs.debian.org does not allow the Wayback Machine to archive Debian's bugs. Please resend your mail to the maintainers of the Debian BTS. Debian BTS administrators ow...@bugs.debian.org Okay, done. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53d9f303.2010...@bitmessage.ch
Bug#388141: Relicensing of Debian www pages
On 24/01/15 00:44, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Riley Baird wrote at 17:16 (EST) on Thursday: A couple of years ago, you offered to assist Debian in the relicensing of its www pages. Has there been any progress on this? I remain willing to help, but I cannot take the lead on this issue. If there's something specific that Debian needs help with to accomplish this task, I remain willing to help. Thanks! Can you give me an idea of what Debian would need to do next to accomplish this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c2a32e.1090...@bitmessage.ch
Relicensing of debian-www pages
Hi -www! From #388141, it seems that Debian is in the process of relicensing the www pages. So far, after contacting all of the contributors, most of them have agreed to relicense but there are still some that have not responded and it is unlikely that they will. Because of this, Stefano Zacchiroli and Bradley M. Kuhn have devised a relicensing plan.[1] It seems that the next step in this plan is to make a list of website lines that are: 1/ still active, and 2/ for which we do *not* have received permission to relicence. Does this list already exist? If not, would anyone be interested in making it? Yours sincerely, Riley Baird [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=nobug=388141#356 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54d466e0.8050...@bitmessage.ch
Bug#388141: Relicensing of Debian www pages
Hi Bradley, A couple of years ago, you offered to assist Debian in the relicensing of its www pages. Has there been any progress on this? Yours thankfully, Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c176ae.1020...@bitmessage.ch
Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?
Hi, Bug #388141 [RC] refers to the relicensing of the debian www pages. After contacting debian-www, it seems that there isn't much interest in fixing it. The next step would involve compiling a list of website lines which are still active yet which relicensing permission has not been received. In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as jessie-ignore? Thanks, Riley Baird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150213065944.be67bd6d5c9d151ef8264...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:16:39 +0100 Tomas Pospisek t...@sourcepole.ch wrote: Am 12.02.2015 um 20:59 schrieb Riley Baird: Bug #388141 [RC] refers to the relicensing of the debian www pages. After contacting debian-www, it seems that there isn't much interest in fixing it. I interpret the relative silence in #388141 differently then you. I'd say that everybody is busy with doing other stuff. So if you want the state of affairs to change, just go after it, bit by bit. As you describe here: The next step would involve compiling a list of website lines which are still active yet which relicensing permission has not been received. And then just ask for permission, line by line. Surprisingly not! Everyone who has been contacted has already been contacted. The reason for collecting these lines is that we need to determine whether the lines in question are copyrightable, and whether they are still in use. In the end I think it's work and if it should be accomplished then someone has to do that work. Since you are interested, just go and hit the work, it may well be that people will join or help you along the way. I've always been happy to do the work, but I thought that access to the wiki databases was necessary to compile such a list. Or is it possible to compile such a list with just a user account on the wiki? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150214071524.fd5a9f473b50c52df74f6...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:40:53 + Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On 2015-02-12 19:59, Riley Baird wrote: In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as jessie-ignore? For reference, as per https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags , setting -ignore tags is the purview of the Release Team, not maintainers or debian-devel. Feel free to suggest such things, but please don't add or remove any -ignore tags. I won't. Thanks for letting me know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150214070436.759e1add961d8bbd3ea14...@bitmessage.ch
Fw: Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:47:53 -0800 Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Riley Baird wrote: In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as jessie-ignore? There's no point in marking bugs in psuedo packages jessie-ignore; they're ignored for the purpose of releasing jessie anyway. Ah, I didn't know that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150214070717.d4b967eb7518ad257f667...@bitmessage.ch
Re: Package count on Debian homepage
It think that statements on the homepage and on the why Debian? pages like Debian comes with over 37500 different pieces of software. are a bit misleading since newcomers will most likely interpret this as the number of software projects that are packaged within Debian. Counting the binary/non-source packages inflates the package count with debug/header/documentation packages. I think it would be more appropriate to put up a count of source packages. For example, in the Debian Administrator's handbook, there is the statement Furthermore, with more than 17,300 source packages, the available software can meet almost any need that one could have, whether at home or in the enterprise [1]. To be honest, I don't think that it will affect the potential user's decision much whether it says 37500 or 17300. pgpTHIDd889uY.pgp Description: PGP signature
