Hi,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:58:05PM -0400, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
[..snip..]
> Debian 8.5 image URL:
>
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/8.5.0/debian-8.5.0-openstack-amd64.qcow2
>
> This image will be gone, soon as Debian launches 8.6.0!!! This is bad.
>
>
> So, can Debi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
* Package name: dh-copyright
Version : 0.0.1
Upstream Author : Jonas Smedegaard
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : debhelper extension to
Quoting Andrew Shadura (2016-08-16 19:57:05)
>
>
> On 16 August 2016 at 14:32, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
> >> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
> >> > So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we continue
> >> > to w
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> I always use this as one argument when it comes to "Why should be care
> about Debian? Our users use something else", that packaging includes a
> careful review and documentation of the copyright.
Usually only for the initial upload,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:25:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Normally what a potential user needs to know is the effective licence
> of the whole thing.
Note that we don't even try to declare the license of *binaries we are
shipping* and, unless I'm mistaken, the license of a library you are goin
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:55)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
>> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
>>> So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we
>>> continue to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to
>>> do so?
>>
On 16/08/16 16:21, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:19)
Ghostscript packaged for Debian has a debian/copyright file with ~400
lines enumerating which source files are covered by which license (and
then another ~800 lines covering the actual licenses verbatim).
Fedo
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
> Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:19)
> > In the end up looked at the package's upstream web pages, which
> > contained a clear answer to the question.
>
> How was the approach¹ not successful? Didn't you succeed in realizing
> that the
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:19)
> Andreas Tille writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:59:09AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>> It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright
>>> is really helping the package quality at all, and if it's
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mouaad Aallam
* Package name: google-android-platform-installers
Version : 1470833400
Upstream Author : Google, Inc
* URL : https://developer.android.com/index.html
* License : public-domain
Programming Lang: C, Java, B
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
> Quoting Markus Koschany (2016-08-15 23:02:06)
> > So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we continue
> > to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to do so?
>
> Same reason that we should continue to care abou
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:59:09AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is
> > really helping the package quality at all, and if it's worth it.
>
> I would be interested in having
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is
> really helping the package quality at all, and if it's worth it.
I see here another reason -- and an argument actually *for* Debian
packaging (being different from, f.e. MacPorts or Conda):
Detai
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Personally, I think the bulk of the reason we should care about
> debian/copyright is to achieve license compliance.
For this, IMO the licensing information is not just enough, since it
does not document how our binaries are licensed.
For example, a source package may
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:30:34AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do our
> > > job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality packaging!
> > It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is
> > rea
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2016-08-16 07:59:09)
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:10:42AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> So yes, copyright files are hard and unfun but why should we
>>> continue to write them the way we do if we are not legally bound to
>>> do so?
>>
>> Same reason that we should
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:59:09AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > Not because we are legally bound to do so, but because we want to do our
> > job as distributors properly. We appreciate good quality packaging!
> It's at least worth a discussion whether nitpicking at d/copyright is
> really
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 01:55:48AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Some time has passed and the current situation in sid is this:
>
> COMP=xz → 158 packages
> COMP=gz → 5 packages
>
> The ones using gzip are:
>
> base-files_9.6_amd64.deb
> base-passwd_3.5.39_amd64.deb
> dpkg_1.18.10_
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:36:15AM +0300, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> Yes, this scheme is very flexible and in cases like
> > mysql-connector-c++ the package can depend explicitly on the MySQL
> > package and not the default package.
OK.
> > Or we keep a w
Hello!
2016-08-16 7:44 GMT+03:00 Rene Engelhard :
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:22:22PM +0300, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
>> Hello maintainers of packages that depend in MySQL/MariaDB!
>
> Not everyone is required to read -devel. Mailing them where they read
> it (and be it Cc'ing them) would be better
20 matches
Mail list logo
