multilib followup: caution about remnant shared library files

2013-01-10 Thread Paul Johnson
Here's a cautionary heads up on the transition from ordinary to multilib Debian. I run Debian Wheezy amd64. Some 32 bit applications are installed, and somehow I came to a point where ia32libs wanted to update and transition me to a multilib setup. I'm still trying to figure out if that happened b

Bug#697898: ITP: dtv-scan-tables -- Digital TV scan tables for the DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T, and ATSC standards

2013-01-10 Thread Jonathan McCrohan
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jonathan McCrohan * Package name: dtv-scan-tables Version : 20130111 Upstream Author : Manu Abraham * URL : http://git.linuxtv.org/dtv-scan-tables.git * License : LGPL Programming Lang: None Description : Digital

Bug#697897: RFP: xul-ext-stylish -- a user styles manager for the web

2013-01-10 Thread Paul Wise
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Mozilla Extension Maintainers , debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: xul-ext-stylish Version : 1.3.1 Upstream Author : Jason Barnabe * URL : http://userstyles.org/ : https://addons.mozilla

Work-needing packages report for Jan 11, 2013

2013-01-10 Thread wnpp
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 519 (new: 0) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 142 (new: 1) Total number of packages request

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Russ Allbery writes: > In at least US law, and I'm fairly certain EU law as well, unless you > have explicitly signed a legal contract to transfer your copyright > interest to some other party, you still hold the copyright on every > creative work that you've made, including any patches that you'

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Bart Martens writes: > It's what happens in practice when I submit a patch upstream and don't > say anything about my copyright. Upstream integrates the patch in the > upstream source code and redistributes the result with upstream > copyright and license. I think that this happens quite a lot.

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:56:10PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > It's what happens in practice when I submit a patch upstream and don't say > anything about my copyright. Upstream integrates the patch in the upstream > source code and redistributes the result with upstream copyright and license. >

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Bart Martens
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:46:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the > > > patch author has t

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the > > patch author has the option of what license they want to use. > > It's conventional (alth

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Tille
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:36:35PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > > From my perspective according to DEP5 it can only mean one thing: The > > license is the same as specified in "Files: *" and you blame the > > copyright holder mentioned in this stanca as copyright holder also for > > debian/*. > >

Re: [cut-team] Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!

2013-01-10 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote: >> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working >> well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut' >> link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it ca

Re: Packages with incomplete .md5sum files

2013-01-10 Thread Michael Gilbert
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Excluding shipped files from .md5sums looks seriously wrong for files > in /usr and at least questionable in /var/lib. What is so "serious" about that? Please no more rc mbf's. Thanks, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-req

Re: hardening for binaries/libraries packages

2013-01-10 Thread Simon McVittie
On 10/01/13 18:02, Nick Andrik wrote: > I'm trying to work with a source package that builds packages that > includes both binaries and dynamic libraries. > My question is on how to enable hardening in both of them, but PIE > support only in the binary (since libraries use PIC anyway). Does your l

Processed: Re: Bug#697854: closed by Holger Levsen (Re: Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video)

2013-01-10 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reopen 697854 Bug #697854 {Done: Holger Levsen } [general] general: Fail to display video Bug reopened Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #697854 to the same values previously set > reassign 697854 cheese Bug #697854 [general] gener

Bug#697854: closed by Holger Levsen (Re: Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video)

2013-01-10 Thread Holger Levsen
reopen 697854 reassign 697854 cheese thanks # dear cheese maintainers, # below is some context, please read the full bug log for full context ;) Hi Ralph, On Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2013, Ralph Ronnquist wrote: > Well, as far as I can see it's a problem with the X server software > rather than any

hardening for binaries/libraries packages

2013-01-10 Thread Nick Andrik
I'm trying to work with a source package that builds packages that includes both binaries and dynamic libraries. My question is on how to enable hardening in both of them, but PIE support only in the binary (since libraries use PIC anyway). My solution so far is something like this: ~~

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Bart Martens writes: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases >> the patch author has the option of what license they want to use. >> It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the fr

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote: > I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in > the free software community to just assume that the copyright of any patch > submitted without any explicit copyright and license statement is transferred

Bug#697869: ITP: librrd-simple-perl -- Simple interface to create and store data in RRD files

2013-01-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Russ Allbery * Package name: librrd-simple-perl Version : 1.44 Upstream Author : Nicola Worthington * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/RRD-Simple/ * License : Apache 2.0 Programming Lang: Perl Description : Simp

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-01-10 17:54:28 + (+), Bart Martens wrote: > I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely > legally sound) in the free software community to just assume that > the copyright of any patch submitted without any explicit > copyright and license statement is transferred (

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Bart Martens
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the > patch author has the option of what license they want to use. > > It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the free > software community to

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Bart Martens
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:43:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +, Bart Martens wrote: > > > For the packages I maintain, I now refrain from doing so when the > > > contents of > > > the debian directory are trivial. > > > > I guess you don't bother to clai

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Russ Allbery
Svante Signell writes: > This is a puzzling question for me: If you are the copyright holder of > patches (they can be substantial) which license should apply? Whatever license you want to put on it. However, it's going to need to be compatible with the upstream license or the resulting patched

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Svante Signell
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 14:18 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Markus Koschany (2013-01-10 11:11:30) > > Hi Nick, ... > > On a side note, unace-nonfree also contains patches and the whole > > debian directory is made available under the GPL-2+ license. > > > > Maybe a permissive license is

Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video

2013-01-10 Thread Ralph Ronnquist
I'm afraid I have tried this; I have libv4l-0 installed, and tried the LD_PRELOAD variants as well. No luck :-( The point is that it does work fine when displaying on another host via ssh with X11 forwarding (though skype needs LD_PRELOAD). (Possibly plain remote X11 as well, but I don't have

Bug#697854: closed by Holger Levsen (Re: Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video)

2013-01-10 Thread Ralph Ronnquist
Well, as far as I can see it's a problem with the X server software rather than anything else, or the particular collection of packages I got on that installation. It happens with both cheese and skype, which are the things I've tried, while guvcview fails to run completely, with the note "Fata

Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video

2013-01-10 Thread Abou Al Montacir
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:44 +1100, Ralph Ronnquist wrote: > Package: general > Severity: important > > I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't > show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview). > > The webcam appears to work fine, si

Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video

2013-01-10 Thread Abou Al Montacir
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:44 +1100, Ralph Ronnquist wrote: > Package: general > Severity: important > > I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't > show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview). > > The webcam appears to work fine, si

Bug#697854: marked as done (general: Fail to display video)

2013-01-10 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:04:03 +0100 with message-id <201301101504.03808.hol...@layer-acht.org> and subject line Re: Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video has caused the Debian Bug report #697854, regarding general: Fail to display video to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video

2013-01-10 Thread Ralph Ronnquist
Package: general Severity: important I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview). The webcam appears to work fine, since it shows up at the remote end on skype call (but I see nothing here)

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Markus Koschany (2013-01-10 11:11:30) > Hi Nick, > > On Thu, 10. Jan 05:35 Nick Andrik wrote: > [...] > > My main question is what kind of license should I specify in > > debian/copyright for debian/* ? > > If we assume that the packagers who have worked on this package > > during its l

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread intrigeri
Hi, Paul Wise wrote (10 Jan 2013 05:35:25 GMT) : > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Nick Andrik wrote: >> The main reason I decided to deal with unrar is because of e-book >> reader calibre needing the libunrar.so library [1] in order to read >> CBR files. > I see. FWIW, the GNOME archive mana

Bug#697849: ITP: libtest-command-simple-perl - Perl module to test external commands

2013-01-10 Thread Joost van Baal-Ilić
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Joost van Baal-Ilić * Package name: libtest-command-simple-perl Upstream Author : Darin McBride * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Command-Simple/ * License : Perl (GPL or Artistic) Programming Lang: Perl Description

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Markus Koschany , 2013-01-10, 11:11: I am facing the same problem with my package zangband at the moment. The license is non-free and does not allow copying and distribution for "profit purposes". I had to update the copyright because of bug 696916 and 696919 and decided to make it clear that

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

2013-01-10 Thread Markus Koschany
Hi Nick, On Thu, 10. Jan 05:35 Nick Andrik wrote: [...] > My main question is what kind of license should I specify in > debian/copyright for debian/* ? > If we assume that the packagers who have worked on this package during > its lifetime can agree to a license for the packaging part, what are

Packages with incomplete .md5sum files

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Beckmann
Hi, the following packages from wheezy ship files that are excluded from the .md5sums file: gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/.gacl gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/gridsitefoot.txt gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/gridsitehead.txt libreoffice-

Bug#697835: ITP: mruby -- lightweight implementation of the Ruby language

2013-01-10 Thread Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu * Package name: mruby Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : mruby developers * URL : https://github.com/mruby/mruby * License : MIT Programming Lang: C, Ruby Description : lightweight implementation