2009/6/14 Josselin Mouette :
> Re-running fc-cache used to be done by defoma, but people kept adding
> fc-cache calls manually. They turned out to have been right, since
> defoma support was ripped out of fontconfig a while ago.
It was? I still see this file in the fontconfig package (2.6.0-3):
Charles Plessy writes:
> What you probably complain about is this:
>
> Your debian/copyright file must contain the following information:
>
>- The author(s) name
>- The year(s) of the copyright
>- The used license(s)
>- The URL to the upstream source
>
> In many package
Johan Henriksson writes:
> managed to ignore this discussion until now but anyway tossing in a coin.
>
> would it not be more interesting to standardize the format beyond
> debian? if you get upstream authors and language designers to supply the
> files then more "expensive" formats can be used,
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 15:28 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> > A build tool that pollutes the licence of what its used to build would
> > be rather problematic
> >
> Indeed. But do you always need an exception? I had the impression that
> the output of a GPL'd tool could be licensed at will, unle
Le samedi 13 juin 2009 à 14:14 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Strangely, most of the font packages on my system appear to have
> autogenerated postinst snippets for defoma from dh_installdefoma, but
> there's no equivalent for fc-cache which has been added everywhere by hand.
> Should there be a
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:08:26PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> since version 2.6.0-4, fontconfig includes a trigger that will re-run
> fc-cache whenever needed.
> Therefore, all font packages that currently do this in the postinst are
> strongly advised to remove these calls. The performance
Hi,
since version 2.6.0-4, fontconfig includes a trigger that will re-run
fc-cache whenever needed.
Therefore, all font packages that currently do this in the postinst are
strongly advised to remove these calls. The performance gains during
upgrades should be huge.
I’ve requested a new lintian c
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:28:50PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]):
> The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are
> all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which
> is GPL-3
Le Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
>
> So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
> getti
Neil Williams writes:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Copyright: © 2008 John Doe
> >© 2009 Initrode, Inc.
> > # Actually I don’t think we should include detailed copyright
> > # information, but that’s another story.
>
> If we can get a list of lic
Robert Collins writes:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 13:35 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>>
>> For that to work, you'd have to somehow indicate which files' licenses
>> are going to be relevant to which binary package. For instance, many
>> packages have (parts of the) build-system machinery GPL'd (e
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:28:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:03:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > And after all, debhelper didn't need a DEP at all in order to come into
> > widespread use, so your worst case scenario could equally well come to pass
> > without ev
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:53:11AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > I'm finding it difficult to believe the argument "oh, but this isn't
> > going to be mandatory".
>
> I don't know anyone making the argument that there should *never* be a
> mandatory machine-parseable ‘debi
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:03:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And after all, debhelper didn't need a DEP at all in order to come into
> widespread use, so your worst case scenario could equally well come to pass
> without ever going through a public discussion process - there are already a
> f
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 13:35 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>
> For that to work, you'd have to somehow indicate which files' licenses
> are going to be relevant to which binary package. For instance, many
> packages have (parts of the) build-system machinery GPL'd (e.g. the
> ltmain.sh from libtoo
Frank Lin PIAT writes:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:17 +, Bart Martens wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >
>> > The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
>> > small package than the current one), it is with the unrealist
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Alexander Reichle-Schmehl"
* Package name: microcom
Version : 2009.6
Upstream Author : Anca and Lucian Jurubita, Sascha Hauer, Marc Kleine-Budde
and Wolfram Sang
* URL : http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=tools/microcom;a=summary
*
managed to ignore this discussion until now but anyway tossing in a coin.
would it not be more interesting to standardize the format beyond
debian? if you get upstream authors and language designers to supply the
files then more "expensive" formats can be used, with less cost for us.
and it would
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:17 +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
> > small package than the current one), it is with the unrealistic amount
> > of information th
On 11780 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> So, how about dropping entirely anything that’s related to files and
> only keep the amount of information we are requiring now? I feel sorry
> for the giant bikeshedding thread about spaces and commas, but it is not
> getting us anywhere.
You mean
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:52:36AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
> “machine-readable debian/copyright”. It is about providing a much
> broader amount of licensing information on our source packages.
>
> The real problem wi
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:31AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Requiring any details of precisely which files are affected makes the
> whole thing impossible because that requires some form of mass-update
> (or at least mass check of individual files) at every upstream release.
> Let's just drop
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:52:36 +0200
Josselin Mouette wrote:
... the first positive contribution to DEP5 that I've seen in months -
but then I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the bike-shedding.
> currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
> “machine-readable debian/c
Hi,
currently, DEP5 is not, contrary to what the name says, about a
“machine-readable debian/copyright”. It is about providing a much
broader amount of licensing information on our source packages.
The real problem with DEP5 is not the format (which is not worse for a
small package than the curre
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jelle de Jong
Package name: pct-sshfs-storage
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Jelle de Jong
URL :
https://secure.powercraft.nl/svn/packages/trunk/source/pct-sshfs-storage/
License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: BA
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:06:54AM +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 21:11 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > Josselin Mouette writes:
> > > > > Th
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 21:11 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Josselin Mouette writes:
> > > > That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
> > >
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 23:39 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20:53PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> > What I now would put in debian/copyright is:
> > Copyright (C) 2006-2008 Person A
> > Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Person B
>
> It depends what you hope to achieve by adding t
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 16:02 +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette writes:
> >
> > > Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
> > > large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained
29 matches
Mail list logo
