On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes any time at all
really.
On 2009-03-20, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes any time at all
really. Unless you are
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Mike O'Connor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:58:14AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
Whatever justification exists for this
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:02:48PM -0700, Daniel Moerner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
trivial
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-03-20, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source
files anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are
doing it is a trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:28:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Mike O'Connor wrote:
Why is this list needed?
Often the license requires it. For instance the BSD license says,
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright.
I
On 2009-03-20, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
All of what you've demonstrated is part of what Mike covered with
???one has to go through all of the source files anyway???, is it not?
The point I got from his message is that, having *already* accepted
the burden of going through
pe, 2009-03-20 kello 04:00 +0100, Romain Beauxis kirjoitti:
Was there any intent of writting such a tool at some point ?
Most of the specifications also deduce from an actual implementation, which
also helps people who don't want to follow the multiple revisions to check
and convert their
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 15, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
Being able to rename an interface without messing with udev is a
feature, not a bug.
Every relevant Linux distribution requires udev, and so do many
important features of Debian
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:09:53AM +, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net
wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:02:48PM -0700, Daniel Moerner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
On 2009-03-20, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
All of what you've demonstrated is part of what Mike covered with
???one has to go through all of the source files anyway???, is it
not? The point I got from his message is that, having
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 09:05:53AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
You can do this with ethtool now, and more cleanly:
link-speed 100
link-duplex full
Yes, I know. But that means that existing working configurations have
to be modified.
[Transferred to -devel as suggested. Please follow-up there].
Le Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:40:33PM +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
It is not easy readables for humans
It is ugly
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:57:13AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Every relevant Linux distribution requires udev, and so do many
important features of Debian systems. Anything not compatible with udev
is a toy which wastes space
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 08:28 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
If anyone wants to actually try working with copyright files for one of
those bigger packages, Mike O'Connor helpfulyl just opened #520485 to
track one of them. Patches are welcome.
How thoughtful of his.
Hint: you can open such a
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:02:48PM -0700, Daniel Moerner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor s...@debian.org wrote:
To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it
On Mar 20, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
It is still possible to install and run Lenny without the use of udev,
and many people do so.
popcon shows that the number is trivial. Definitely not many.
Whether you agree that this is useful or a 'toy'
setup is beside the point; fact is
Twas brillig at 10:50:23 20.03.2009 UTC+01 when kilob...@angband.pl did gyre
and gimble:
AB It's bloat and trouble for embedded or limited ones.
mdev from busybox kicks in there.
--
pgpoBcZgEVOcl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi all,
I had some talks with Eduard Bloch (the author of svn-buildpackage) and
Eddy Petrisor (as a contributor listed in its uploaders field) and it
seems that both of them lost their interest in svn-bp and/or are too
busy to take care of current development. Some time ago I started fixing
some
Le Friday 20 March 2009 10:58:53 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 08:28 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
If anyone wants to actually try working with copyright files for one of
those bigger packages, Mike O'Connor helpfulyl just opened #520485 to
track one of
On Fri March 20 2009 02:53:19 Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
It is still possible to install and run Lenny without the use of udev,
and many people do so.
popcon shows that the number is trivial. Definitely not many.
Perhaps sysadmins that go to the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
In shorter words: I think something should be done about the copyright
file to encourage developers to actually perform an audit of the
license status of files in their packages before they upload. The
current copyright template
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
udev is desired, nearly required for big systems, right. It's bloat and
It's not.
trouble for embedded or limited ones. I don't do embedded personally so I
have no idea how udev fares there, but I can tell you that vservers and udev
don't
Hi,
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The kernel team seems to have a full waiver for listing copyright
holders.
AFAIK linux-kbuild-2.6.28 was rejected from NEW for this very reason.
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 08:28:34AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2009-03-20, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
All of what you've demonstrated is part of what Mike covered with
???one has to go through all of the source files anyway???, is it not?
The point I got from his message
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 12:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
This is why you install udev in the host system and bind-mount its /dev
to the /dev of each context.
Erm… no, you don’t.
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:56:39PM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joe Nahmias je...@debian.org
* Package name: configure-trackpoint
Version : 0.7
Upstream Author : Cheuksan Edward Wang wang02139_AT_gmail.com
* URL :
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:41:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
The point is that, since we can predict the need for this information,
we have the choice of assuming the information is there when we
distribute and never looking for it until the
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 11:16 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
As a maintainer, it is your duty to make sure that everything you upload is
DFSG
free, which means checking every single file. As you have to do this anyway,
it
makes sense to record that information in debian/copyright. If you
Le Friday 20 March 2009 12:55:05 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
If that's too much effort for your, get a co-maintainer or a different
package.
Fine. Do you have co-maintainers on sale?
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Romain
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 13:02 +0100, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Le Friday 20 March 2009 12:55:05 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Fine. Do you have co-maintainers on sale?
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Do you really think we
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:34:44AM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Luca Capello l...@pca.it wrote:
I would prefer any new information to be added there instead, since the
files above are available offline as well.
Does not forbid to add to wiki in order to
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Mar 20, Mike Bird mgb-deb...@yosemite.net wrote:
popcon shows that the number is trivial. Definitely not many.
Perhaps sysadmins that go to the effort of removing udev from
some systems are less likely to install popcon on those systems?
And
Le Friday 20 March 2009 13:07:44 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Do you really think we can find an unlimited amount of volunteers
willing to continuously read thousands of files to find the list
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de (17/03/2009):
Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net writes:
I am interested in seeing the dpkg patch.
The most current work should be on the multiarch alioth project. If
you do work on something please add it there.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:14:53PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
trouble for embedded or limited ones. I don't do embedded personally so I
have no idea how udev fares there, but I can tell you that vservers and udev
don't go well together.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:07:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 13:02 +0100, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Le Friday 20 March 2009 12:55:05 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Fine. Do you have co-maintainers on sale?
It is not about co-maintaining, but about
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
They have their specific needs, and the last time I checked, udev couldn't
fulfill them. You need just /dev/{null,zero,full,random,urandom,tty,ptmx}
and the links to /proc/. More may be needed, but that depends on the
You keep missing the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20:14PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:07:44PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 13:02 +0100, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
Le Friday 20 March 2009 12:55:05 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
Fine.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:24:01PM +0100, Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org
wrote:
Le Friday 20 March 2009 13:07:44 Josselin Mouette, vous avez écrit :
It is not about co-maintaining, but about co-reviewing which is a totally
different task.
Do you really think we can find an
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:03:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
They have their specific needs, and the last time I checked, udev couldn't
fulfill them. You need just /dev/{null,zero,full,random,urandom,tty,ptmx}
and the links to /proc/.
Le Friday 20 March 2009 14:18:22 Mike Hommey, vous avez écrit :
This idea of a public reviewing page for NEWly uploaded packages really
looked appealing to me.
On the other hand, when you look at projets such as Mozilla or Webkit,
there are people already doing that upstream, or ensuring
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jon Dowland
jon+debian-de...@alcopop.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:34:44AM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Luca Capello l...@pca.it wrote:
I would prefer any new information to be added there instead, since the
files
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
You keep missing the point. udev matters in the host system, not in each
context.
Do you mean the original point of this thread, about ifrename (which indeed
can't be used inside vserver or openvz, can be in xen)? Or do you mean
other
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11:20AM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
In shorter words: I think something should be done about the copyright
file to encourage developers to actually perform an audit of the
license
Hi,
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two
leading spaces is considered verbose. This leaves a lot of freedom to
simulate for instance itemize lists. I'd like to give some examples for
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is.
If you think that sounds like too much work, maintain a different package.
If you don't stop writing crap like this, I really think I *will* stop
maintaining
Hi,
Since a while I'm pretty active in using Debian/Linux for Multimedia
production, especially focusing on music production (check
www.linuxmusicians.com for instance).
Debian is a great system to use for this. Unfortunately there are
nice music production applications which are not
also sprach Andreas Tille til...@rki.de [2009.03.20.1445 +0100]:
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two
leading spaces is considered verbose. This leaves a lot of freedom to
simulate for
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:02:31PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is.
If you think that sounds like too much work, maintain a different package.
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 14:02 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
If we were suggesting some totally arbitrary and time consuming task, then I
could understand your concerns. However, you should be checking each file as a
part of your packaging, all that is being requested is that you document this
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
For instance, I posted some apps which are not in Debian right now as wishes
(RFP):
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=rosea.grammost...@gmail.com
(There is work on progress on Frescobaldi, Rumor (my first Debian package ;)
)
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, martin f krafft wrote:
What we really should do, instead of clinging to the NIH-behaviour,
reinventing the wheel, and polishing it over and over again is ditch
the pseudo-RFC822 format we have and use Yaml instead.
http://www.yaml.org/start.html
http://yaml.org/spec/1.2/
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:37:44PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 20, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
You keep missing the point. udev matters in the host system, not in each
context.
Do you mean the original point of this thread, about ifrename (which indeed
can't be used
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is.
If you think that sounds like too much work, maintain a different package.
If you don't stop writing crap like this,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:13:29PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
No, look at the text I quoted : you suggested to maintain a different package.
Yes, out of several emails I sent to the list, you selected a single sentence.
I apologise if you got the wrong message from what I had written, it was not
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:14:36PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 14:02 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
If we were suggesting some totally arbitrary and time consuming task, then I
could understand your concerns. However, you should be checking each file
as a
part
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org writes:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20:14PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
However, it is required that we check every single file we upload
to the Debian archives, so this task has to be done in some form
or another. If you feel like your
Twas brillig at 15:30:11 20.03.2009 UTC+01 when kilob...@angband.pl did gyre
and gimble:
AB udev is needed to allow for complex and/or hotplugged hardware.
AB Small systems have either little, static hardware,
Small systems nowadays have a lot of hotplugged hardware: various USB
devices,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:35:22PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
It behoves us as distributors to check, no matter how hard it is.
If you think that sounds like too much work,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:35:34PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:13:29PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
No, look at the text I quoted : you suggested to maintain a different
package.
Yes, out of several emails I sent to the list, you selected a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:46:51AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see what your problem is.
It seems that the problem is that “look for collaborators” is what
they're already doing, without apparent impact on the problem at hand
(the workload involved in copyright auuditing of the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:40:18PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:14:36PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 14:02 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
If we were suggesting some totally arbitrary and time consuming task,
then I
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:59:35PM +, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:46:51AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see what your problem is.
It seems that the problem is that “look for collaborators” is what
they're already doing, without apparent
As an additional hint the multimedia team might consider using the Debian Pure
Blends framework which enables them to show quite simply what is just there and
what they are working on (for instance see just issued bits [1]). So if you
are interested in those tasks and bugs pages or in multimedia
Hi again,
Obey Arthur Liu suggested to have this svn-bp re-engineering as a Google
Summer of Code project. I'm not sure if it's big enough to employ a
student for such a long time.
I'd like to see comments on this, too.
Hauke
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
No one is saying it isn't a chore.
As a maintainer, it is your duty to make sure that everything you
upload is DFSG free, which means checking every single file. As you
have to do this anyway, it makes sense to record that information in
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:55:30PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
That you actually felt stroing enough to type twice, which pissed me off.
See 20090320111658.gd7...@tumbolia.org if you don't remember suggesting
to maintain a different package.
Well, there are only three solutions, and I have
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:01:56PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
* Complaining that you would have to check every single file implies that
you
don't already check every single file, which you should be doing.
If all the above were true, no package of xulrunner, iceweasel, openoffice,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Point me to the paragraph in the policy that says that the copyright file
must list all copyright holders and licensing info for all individual files
in the source package.
Let me help you: there is no such paragraph.
So what on
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:29:35PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
As an additional hint the multimedia team might consider using the Debian
Pure
Blends framework which enables them to show quite simply what is just there
and
what they are working on (for instance see just issued bits
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:13:45PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Mar 20, Mike Bird mgb-deb...@yosemite.net wrote:
popcon shows that the number is trivial. Definitely not many.
Perhaps sysadmins that go to the effort of removing udev from
some
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:40:24 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
as you might have noticed the effort formerly known as Custom
Debian Distributions was renamed to Debian Pure Blends (see
[1] for the reasons). This process
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:45:09PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
1. Itemize lists: (li)
2. Enumerate lists: (ol)
--
3. Description lists: (dl)
This suggestion is far from complete and should be enhanced.
Well,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:40:24 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
as you might have noticed the effort formerly known as Custom
Debian Distributions
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:54:30PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
Obey Arthur Liu suggested to have this svn-bp re-engineering as a Google
Summer of Code project. I'm not sure if it's big enough to employ a
student for such a long time.
I think it's a worthy goal in the spirit of GSoC. Whether
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:18:33PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Point me to the paragraph in the policy that says that the copyright file
must list all copyright holders and licensing info for all individual files
in the source
Quoting Daniel Dickinson (csh...@brucetelecom.com):
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:40:24 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
as you might have noticed the effort formerly known as Custom
Debian Distributions was renamed to
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:45:11PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
I guess people think the new copyright proposal mandates mentioning the
copyright holders etc. in a much more verbose way than Policy does so
far.
So people consider it a regression with respect to their routine.
Great, so it
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:35:34PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
The distinction I was trying to draw is that this matter is totally
unrelated to the copyright documentation we keep in the packages.
Considering that it is already our mandate to check every single file,
No, it isn't.
On Fri, Mar
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:56:39AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it doesn't.
If I have a good upstream and am confident that the work has been correctly
licensed, there's no reason for me to go through the software file-by-file
just to double-check this.
As I have been corrected, so
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 10:39 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
I don't care for copyright notices, really. I care for license
statements; and I take the upstream on trust that the license attached
to the work is valid (since it is hard to determine every copyright
holder --
On Fri March 20 2009 09:29:26 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:13:45PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Marco, it was you that cited absence of evidence (the low popcon
score) as evidence of absence. You don't get to accuse Adam of doing
the same, especially since he's not doing it.
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le vendredi 20 mars 2009 à 10:39 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
I don't care for copyright notices, really. I care for license
statements; and I take the upstream on trust that the license attached
to the work is valid (since it is hard to
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
documented the license or copyright information for any of the
Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about
that.)
Currently the ftpmasters don't require those
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:12:02 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
Maybe the best resolution to this is to have a broader discussion that
leads to a rewording of Policy 12.5 that makes the requirements
explicit, with ftp-master buy-in on what the
Kalle Kivimaa kil...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
documented the license or copyright information for any of the
Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern about
that.)
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
But do you think this is possible ?
Sure. Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
(ftp-master), so it seems likely that we can reach a
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:12:02 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
Maybe the best resolution to this is to have a broader discussion that
leads to a rewording of Policy 12.5 that makes the requirements explicit,
with ftp-master buy-in on what the requirements are?
on the same page and everyone
At the encouragement of Luk Claes, I would like to raise this subject in
the general mailing list.
It has been my impression that when using aptitude and requesting to
install/upgrade desktops (KDE, maybe also Gnome), several other
packages, which don't interest me, are installed as well. They
Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:38:34 Russ Allbery, vous avez écrit :
But do you think this is possible ?
Sure. Resolving this sort of thing is the point of the Policy process,
after all, and we have a clear authority that does the enforcement
(ftp-master), so it seems
Le Friday 20 March 2009 15:54:14 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
Not sure what else you expect someone to respond with apart from throwing
their hands up and conceding that we should adopt policy to conform with
peoples wish to avoid additional work.
You know, if you get some agressive answers
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two
leading spaces is considered verbose.
Packages.gz is already 26Mb -
Romain Beauxis to...@rastageeks.org writes:
Sorry, but there was also an argument below in my message.
The point is that there are possibly a lot of corner cases, such as the
autotools case, for which we can't really decide and list every single
issue or produce a general rational.
Since
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 19:03 +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two
leading
Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
descriptions of packages. The only thing I know is that lines with two
leading spaces is considered verbose.
Hi Joss,
Josselin Mouette wrote:
1. GNOME-PYTHON
I propose to file wishlist bugs on the packages that can move to using
python-gconf.
2. GNOME-PYTHON-DESKTOP
I propose to file important bugs on all packages depending on
python-gnome2-desktop, making them RC once the package is removed
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:08:43 +0100
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 19:03 +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:45:09 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille til...@rki.de wrote:
I tried to find a clear advise how to reasonable format lists inside long
Martín Ferrari wrote:
Hi,
Hi
In our call to move away from net-tools, I want to first start with
identifying the packages that still use it:
* ifconfig, route: the most difficult ones, both can be replaced by
calls to ip, maybe except for some obscure options.
* netstat : sstat provides
Le Friday 20 March 2009 19:55:29 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, vous avez écrit :
Since the vast majority of the packages fall into a regular copyright and
licensing, this would also mean overload the policy with stuff that is
only relevant in a very small number of cases in proportion.
If
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
