Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 23:24:24) > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > I have so far worked the most on identifying and grouping source data, > > putting only little attention (yet - but do dream big...) towards > > parsing and processing debian/copyright files e.g. to compare and assess > >

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 11:34 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > Rather than discussing only Noto vs. DejaVu, is there any possibility of > reintroducing Bitstream Vera as a default-font option (even if with a > low priority), for systems which have that installed? IIRC DejaVu is a fork of and similar to

Bug#1051660: ITP: node-vega-lite -- Node.js library that provides a higher-level grammar for visual analysis for node-vega

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yadd X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-vega-lite Version : 5.14.1 Upstream Contact: University of Washington Interactive Data Lab * URL : https://github.

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

On 2023-09-10 16:04, Praveen Arimbrathodiyil wrote: On 10 September 2023 2:38:38 am IST, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: * The task-* packages should be reconsidered. At first hand I'm thinking of all the non-latin task-* packages which recommend a particular font. Let's take task-hindi-desktop as an

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

On 2023-09-10 17:34, The Wanderer wrote: I am not sure why DejaVu is the alternative default under discussion. Prior to the switch to Noto, the default preferred font family (listed first in /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf) was not DejaVu; that was, as it still is, listed as the second preferenc

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

Thanks for your replies! On 2023-09-10 05:23, Paul Wise wrote: Personally, I found Noto Mono to be very ugly in comparison to the DejaVu fonts that I was used to, You did notice that we reversed to DejaVu Sans Mono for monospace, right? https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/c

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

* Gunnar Hjalmarsson [2023-09-09 23:08]: > [...] fonts-noto-core covers "all" scripts [...] Just want to point out it doesn't cover CJK, which ironically is the one thing I actually use and prefer Noto for as I definitely prefer DejaVu (or Bitstream Vera) for latin fonts, which is why I've been o

Re: /usr/-only image

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 21:43, Russ Allbery wrote: > (This does not rule out the possibility that certain carefully-crafted > configurations with a subset of packages may work in this mode, of > course.) Yes, this is pretty much what we are talking about in these cases - targeted experiments, to

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Jonas Smedegaard writes: > I have so far worked the most on identifying and grouping source data, > putting only little attention (yet - but do dream big...) towards > parsing and processing debian/copyright files e.g. to compare and assess > how well aligned the file is with the content it is su

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 21:41:59) > Jeremy Stanley writes: > > > I'm surprised, for example, by the absence of the ISC license given that > > not only ISC's software but much of that originating from the OpenBSD > > ecosystem uses it. My personal software projects also use the ISC > > li

Re: /usr/-only image

Luca Boccassi writes: > On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 18:55, Nils Kattenbeck wrote: >> I am looking to generate a Debian image with only a /usr and /var >> partition as per discoverable partition specification. However, it >> seems to me like the omission of /etc leads to several issues in core >> pac

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

* Russ Allbery [2023-09-10 09:16]: In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me: Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes: > I very much like this idea. The main reason maintainers want more > licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses/ is so that they do not anymore > have humongous d/copyright files with all license texts copypasted over > and over again. If long texts could be

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

At 2023-09-10T21:47:36+0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > Quoting Bill Allombert (2023-09-10 18:29:36) > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that > > > >> depends

Bug#1051637: ITP: python-bitmath -- handle file sizes with different prefix notations

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Michael Fladischer X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 * Package name: python-bitmath Version : 1.3.3.1 Upstream Contact: Tim Bielawa * URL : https://github.com/tbielawa/b

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Hi, Quoting Bill Allombert (2023-09-10 18:29:36) > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07) > > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on > > >> "license-common-list"

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Jeremy Stanley writes: > I'm surprised, for example, by the absence of the ISC license given that > not only ISC's software but much of that originating from the OpenBSD > ecosystem uses it. My personal software projects also use the ISC > license. Are you aggregating the "License:" field in copy

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On 2023-09-09 20:35:27 -0700 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > Finally, as promised, here is the count of source packages in > unstable that use the set of licenses that I taught my script to > look for. This is likely not accurate; the script uses a bunch of > heuristics and guesswork. [...]

Re: /usr/-only image

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 18:55, Nils Kattenbeck wrote: > > Hello, > > I am looking to generate a Debian image with only a /usr and /var > partition as per discoverable partition specification. However, it > seems to me like the omission of /etc leads to several issues in core > packages and logging

Bug#1051628: ITP: node-d3-delaunay -- Node.js fast library for computing the Voronoi diagram

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yadd X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-d3-delaunay Version : 6.0.4 Upstream Contact: Observable, Inc. * URL : https://github.com/d3/d3-delaunay * License

Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07) > > >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on > >> "license-common-list", and ISO image provides both, then? It would be > >> no

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-10 18:16:07) > Russ Allbery writes: > > > In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about > > the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is > > what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me: > > > Licen

Re: /usr/-only image

On Sep 10, Nils Kattenbeck wrote: > I am looking to generate a Debian image with only a /usr and /var > partition as per discoverable partition specification. However, it > seems to me like the omission of /etc leads to several issues in core > packages and logging in becomes impossible. > Is thi

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Russ Allbery writes: > In order to structure the discussion and prod people into thinking about > the implications, I will make the following straw man proposal. This is > what I would do if the decision was entirely up to me: > Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Jonas Smedegaard writes: > Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07) >> Hmm, how about providing license-common package and that depends on >> "license-common-list", and ISO image provides both, then? It would be >> no regressions. I do wonder why we've never done this. Does anyone know?

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

On 2023-09-09 at 23:23, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 23:08 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > >> My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction, and >> I have taken a couple of follow-up steps in Debian. There are still >> loose ends and more work to be done to achieve

/usr/-only image

Hello, I am looking to generate a Debian image with only a /usr and /var partition as per discoverable partition specification. However, it seems to me like the omission of /etc leads to several issues in core packages and logging in becomes impossible. Is this an unsupported use case and if yes,

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

On 10 September 2023 2:38:38 am IST, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: >Hi! > >With fontconfig 2.14, which entered testing last January, upstream fontconfig >prefers Noto over DejaVu in /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf. The change was >not preceded by any discussion I'm aware of. It appears to be rel

Bug#1051608: ITP: node-d3-geo-projection -- Extended geographic projections for node-d3-geo

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yadd X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-d3-geo-projection Version : 4.0.0 Upstream Contact: Mike Bostock * URL : https://d3js.org/d3-geo-projection/ * License : I

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 04:36, Russ Allbery wrote: > Licenses will be included in common-licenses if they meet all of the > following criteria: > > * The license is DFSG-free. > * Exactly the same license wording is used by all works covered by it. > * The license applies to at

Bug#1051601: ITP: node-geojson -- Node.js library to convert geo data into GeoJSON

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yadd X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-geojson Version : 0.5.0 Upstream Contact: Casey Cesari * URL : https://github.com/caseycesari/geojson.js *

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Quoting Hideki Yamane (2023-09-10 11:00:07) > On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 22:41:48 -0700 > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and > > > lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short > > > name of licenses for DEP-5 and SPDX

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On Sep 10, Enrico Zini wrote: > I like this. I'd say that even if a license is shorter than 25 lines I'd > appreciate to be able to link to it instead of copypasting it. Me too. > I like to be able to fill the license field with a value, after checking > that the upstream license didn't diverge

Re: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 22:41:48 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > > How about just pointing SPDX licenses URL for whole license text and > > lists DFSG-free licenses from that? (but yes, we should adjust short > > name of licenses for DEP-5 and SPDX for it). > > Can we do this legally? If we can, it c

Bug#1051591: ITP: node-vega-tooltip -- Tooltip for node-vega and node-vega-lite

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Yadd X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: node-vega-tooltip Version : 0.33.0 Upstream Contact: https://github.com/vega/vega-tooltip/issues * URL : https://github.com/vega/vega-tooltip * License : BS

Bug#1051590: general: Received error from D-Bus search

Package: general Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: kru...@gmail.com Dear Maintainer, Received error from D-Bus search provider org.gnome.Terminal.desktop: Gio.DBusError: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.UnknownMethod: Obiekt nie istnieje w ścieżce „/org/gnome/Terminal/SearchProvider”

Bug#1051588: ITP: rust-pkcs8 -- pure Rust implementation of PKCS#8

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jonas Smedegaard X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 * Package name: rust-pkcs8 Version : 0.10.2 Upstream Contact: RustCrypto Developers * URL : https://github.com/rustcryp