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
Russ Allbery writes:
> I think being more explicit in this section would clearly be useful.
> What do you think it should say and why?
I think the ‘debian/copyright’ file should record Debian's claim of:
* the license terms under which Debian and its recipients receive and
may redistribute th
Ben Finney writes:
> I don't see why we keep mixing up what Debian policy requires of us with
> what copyright law requires of us. The requirements of Debian's policy
> for the contents of ‘debian/copyright’ don't stem *only* from the
> absolute minimum imposed by copyright law (which is nothing
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
>
> >> So far as I can tell from the GPL 2 and GPL 3, Eduardo is correct
> >> and the address portion is not part of the notices that the GPL
> >> requires be maintained.
>
> > That's speak of what we are legally required to d
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> So far as I can tell from the GPL 2 and GPL 3, Eduardo is correct and
>> the address portion is not part of the notices that the GPL requires be
>> maintained.
> That's speak of what we are legally required to do by copyright law,
> which is not the
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > Do you agree with Eduardo's argument below:
> >
> > Eduardo M KALINOWSKI writes:
> >
> >> IANAL, but I don't think the address is part of the license. I
> >> believe the address can be changed to reflect the correct
> >> information, if the rest
Ben Finney writes:
> Do you agree with Eduardo's argument below:
>
> Eduardo M KALINOWSKI writes:
>
>> IANAL, but I don't think the address is part of the license. I
>> believe the address can be changed to reflect the correct
>> information, if the rest of the license information is kept.
>
> T
(Now including debian-policy; this bears on how to interpret §12.5
w.r.t. changing the FSF's address in an upstream license grant.)
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:37:08PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > If we distribute a package with ‘debian/copyright’ so that it
> > delibe
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
> Seconded.
me too.
(not quoted as this aint a GR. :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:59 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> > > packages may fall back on a
Andrew McMillan writes:
> Here's an updated patch to apply the following wording:
>
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
>
Andrew McMillan writes:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
>> packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
>> interface is available when they are executed.
> Since we're essen
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:19AM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> > packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
> > interface is available w
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 10:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Packages that are essential or that are dependencies of essential
> packages may fall back on another prompting method if no such
> interface is available when they are executed.
Since we're essentially saying that all package
Holger Levsen writes:
> Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> Management Specification, version 2 or higher. Exem
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 20:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Management Specification, version 2 or higher, unless no such
> > interface is available when they are executed.
> >
>
> Should we require that non-essential packages depend on debconf if they're
> going to do prompting?
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> hi raphael,
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary.
> > Prompting must be done by communicating through a program, such
> > as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration
> > Management Speci
hi raphael,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 08:10:21AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
> >
> > dpkg...
>
> Not anymore, no. There's no
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, sean finney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Is there actually packages that does not use debconf ?
>
> dpkg...
Not anymore, no. There's no prompting in any of the dpkg's maintainer
scripts.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > Also, there is the funny case of config scripts; these are run
> > even before preinst, and before any pre-dependencies are installed. And
> > yet, these scripts are often used to prompt using debconf; they must b
21 matches
Mail list logo
