Bug#678607: "original authors" in 12.5 is unclear

2017-08-01 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Package: debian-policy Version: 4.0.0.4 Followup-For: Bug #678607 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > diff --git a/policy.xml b/policy.xml > index ce5960b..725a951 100644 > --- a/policy.xml > +++ b/policy.xml > @@ -11777,8 +11777,12 @@ END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY > > >

Bug#798476: debian-policy: don't require Uploaders

2017-08-01 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
unless explicitly circumvented by flagged the upload as an NMU or an upload by a not-regularly-uploading team member). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] ke

Bug#798476: Returning to the requirement that Uploaders: contain humans

2017-08-03 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Do the MIA team also track MIA teams? My concern is that packages without maintainers may go unnoticed when none of its previously active maintainers were tracked individually. For such detection of abandonment we need not track _all_ active maintainers, but at least one - as individual. - Jonas

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Javascript team policy and rejection of node-three binary package

2018-03-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
script team an old practice of avoiding duplicate code: When code is same for Browsers and Nodejs, we ship the code in the libjs-* package and have that package "Provides: " the nodejs package. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136

Bug#907051: Finding rough consensus on level of vendoring for large upstreams

2021-09-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
ded as separate source packages. Concretely I think not I but ftpmaster objects to the above: Node.js packages embed unrelated packages to meet ftpmaster requirement of a minimum size source package. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Web

Bug#907051: Finding rough consensus on level of vendoring for large upstreams

2021-09-02 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Phil Morrell (2021-09-03 03:30:04) > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:46:20AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > First of all, thanks for compiling the list of reasonings. > > Thanks for taking the time to read through it, I was hoping it would > be a useful observation

Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main

2011-09-20 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
mends" means the package in main encourages the use of material outside of main. Setting "Provides:" means the package outside of main encourages the use of material outside of main. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45

Bug#633797: copyright-format: "with exception" underspecified

2011-11-15 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
use, you need to use a > custom shortname instead of an ORed or ANDed list of licenses. > > Is there a consensus for this position? > > I think for future versions of the standard, it's worth covering this > case even if it's only a hypothetical; but there's no re

Bug#588497: New virtual package: httpd-wsgi

2014-07-29 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
HTTP (via Apache2 but also) on its own, and handle (a lot of protocols including) WSGI. On a related note, it probably makes sense to add similar note for PSGI and maybe other protocols too (not sure how widespread other ones are), but that's outside the scope of this bugreport, I guess.

Bug#588497: New virtual package: httpd-wsgi

2014-07-30 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Bill Allombert (2014-07-30 11:59:38) > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:27:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Bill Allombert wrote: >>> Would that description be OK: >>> >>> httpd-wsgi A WSGI capable HTTP server >>> >>&g

Bug#786470: debian-policy: [copyright-format] Add an optional “License-Grant” field

2015-05-22 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Package: debian-policy Followup-For: Bug #786470 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At somewhat related https://bugs.debian.org/786450#8 (bug against lintian triggered not by License-Grant but License-Reference), Jakub Wilk argues that Copyright Format 1.0 mandates License _field_ - no

Bug#171292: debian-policy: upgrading-checklist should point to 13.6 regarding examples, not 11.7.3

2002-11-30 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.8.0 Severity: minor /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz line 125 refer to [11.7.3] regarding examples. The proper reference is [13.6]. - Jonas -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: powerpc Kernel: Linux au

Bug#348336: Proposal seconded

2006-01-24 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 seconded - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux

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

2023-09-09 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
is longer than 25 lines. I fully support the above proposed criteria, and appreciate your initiative to have this conversation. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

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

2023-09-10 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
e: Apache-2.0 Reference: /usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0 License: Expat [the full contents of the Expat license] That syntax introduces a new field "Reference" (our copyright file format permits new fields, despite lintian complaining about it). Related discussion is at https

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

2023-09-10 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
copyright files (and other teksts) using [semantic linebreaks] made me forget that Expat license is arguably only 3 lines long (whereas in my style of writing it is 24-25 lines long). If "include all SPDX licenses" is for some reason (space in minimal systems?) problematic, then let me pro

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

2023-09-10 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
ntion (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 supposed to cover. So if I understand your question correctly and you are not looking for the output of `licensecheck --list-license

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

2023-09-10 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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.

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

2023-09-12 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
nding, occur using the machine-readable format - only with less strictly structured debian/copyright files. If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how th

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

2023-09-12 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Russ Allbery (2023-09-12 18:15:27) > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > If you mean to say that ambiguous MIT declarations exist in > > debian/copyright files written using the machine-readable format, then > > please point to an example, as I cannot imagine how tha