On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 17:17 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > "Debian emotional support group", maybe.
>
> I find this suggestion very surprising, possibly even insulting. At
> the very least
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 15:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Conflict escalation and discipline"):
> > Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
> > to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
> >
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 13:41 +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> I believe that a-h is the natural starting point for dealing with these
> issues.
Most of the problems being discussed right now, and in general, seem
to be of the sort where feelings are hurt, but harassment isn't
happening. The
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:59:16PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:52:07PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Furthermore, this "file is dangerous" attribute ought to be copied
> > much more.
>
> no, it ought to be the default. all files should be considered harmful,
> unless
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:59:18AM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> while it was primarily targeted towards Windows machines, maybe we
> could tailor a response which shows how Debian is more secure and
> possibilities of such infections are low/non-existent .
Others have commented (correctly, I
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 09:37:11PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> "Non-profit" means that Debian does not distribute surplus profits back
> to people such as shareholders. It does not mean that Debian can not
> make a profit on the sale of a t-shirt, as long as that profit is
> re-invested in the
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:30:19PM +0200, alberto fuentes wrote:
> It comes down to know if planet is about debian or about debian developers
From https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian:
What Can I Post On Planet?
Planet Debian aims to aggregate the blog posts of people who are
The meta issue here is who decides policy for Planet Debian, and how
that is done. This is important for the current case as well: the
controversial blog post is dates March 30, the change to require
suitability for 12-year-olds is from March 31, and the wiki change was
made by the author of the
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 03:46:41PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> From the current list of powers in the consitution §5.1.1—§5.1.5 are
> IMO the strongest powers, and they are either very very seldomly used
> or when used they are pretty much a rubber stamp. Whenever a DPL has
> tried to be more
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:50:19AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The truth is that even though the constitution grants _some_ powers to
> the DPL, they are in general not used, because IMO the project would
> not see those actions with good eyes.
I'm not sure I agree with that. DPL powers include
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in
> stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to
> unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there?
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:50:12PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a
> deb822 field in the source package itself.
FWIW, I think this is the kind of information that should be kept out
of the source package, since changing
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:02:27PM +0100, Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
> I have just created the page:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption
>
> and added myself to the list.
I've added myself to the list.
--
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh
signature.asc
We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in
various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix
bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the
https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got over 300
maintainers now, and NMUs are quite normal, though I suspect
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:27:58PM +0200, Frederique wrote:
> What has to be done to get Jitsi pushed through to testing to have it Debian
> 9 stable?
It's not in Debian testing, because of reasons shown at
https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=jitsi, and you should help
the Jitsi packaging
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:07:43AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I wonder about a landing page for upstreams interested in working with the
> Debian project to provide packages within the official Debian repos.
Is https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide the kind of page you mean? It
is not
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:07:53PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>
> > Totally agree. Our standards are far too high for many upstreams.
>
> I don't understand the disconnect here. Are upstreams not interested
> in software quality to the extent
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:17:27AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
If on -vote the required amount of seconds have been reached, I
will announce that the GR process has been sarted on
debian-devel-announce.
Sure, and that's excellent. It would, though, in my opinion to be good
to announce the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:30:43PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
I think we should clearly indicate where GRs should be announced.
(Should, I suppose I'm arguing, not must).
I think we don't need to name the place in the constitution. I don't
think we need a hard rule about where the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text
files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess
the real concern) ?
Several of our
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:00:20AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
What do the rest of you think?
Given how arbitrarly other bans have been proposed, I think that the
outcome should stay private unless the banned person
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
This led to a philosophical debate about whether bans should be made public.
Alexander expressed concern that having them published could be harmful to a
person's reputation, since employers will google your name and see that
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:55:11PM -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
This is a highly re-worked proposal for performing upstream donations
and donations to the Debian project. Major changes include:
* Debian developers are not allowed to receive any direct monetary
contribution or change the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:20:47PM -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
Thanks to everyone that has participated in the discussion thus far. :)
I think there have been a number of solid concerns and issues raised,
which I'm going to try and wrap into a proposal below.
I think it might help simplify the
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:03:59PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sorry for the delay. I've now finished doing that: JessieReleaseProcess
is now a subpage of Debate, and AlwaysReleasableTesting a subpage of
JessieReleaseProcess, as recommended in /Debate. I've fixed all the
links I've found,
I suggest Enrico's Debian Community Guidelines would form a good
base document for this discussion.
http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/
--
http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts
http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:37:39PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi all,
On Di, 21 Mai 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
1. Do not flame, use foul language, or in general be abusive or
disrespectful towards other people on the mailinglists or elsewhere
And who defines that?
We do.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19:08AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Question: there are various overlaps from this proposal and DEPs
( http://dep.debian.net/ ). Not only in some of the explicit goals you
state (e.g. documenting the state of discussions), but also in the fact
that other FOSS
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
I really like this idea. The only problem I have is: How to know in
advance whether a debate might concern a difficult development issue
or not.
I don't think there's any need to define criteria for when writing
essays are
Debian: still in space
http://www.debian.org/News/1997/19970708b
--
http://www.cafepress.com/trunktees -- geeky funny T-shirts
http://gtdfh.branchable.com/ -- GTD for hackers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 10:32:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
A colleague of mine did an internal evaluation of possible locally-hosted
StackOverflow-style applications and found one that looks pretty good:
We have had http://ask.debian.net/ for a couple of years now, but I haven't
looked at it
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:19:12AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
AFAIK Matthew Garrett hasn't been active and directly involved
participant in the Debian development community for years. What is
the reason for keeping his blog on planet.d.o?
Matthew has been blogging frequently over the several
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 05:50:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
(Fearing an increase in nitpicking threshold.) Well, you can, people
will, and I'm sure nobody will bother, on average. But I can imagine all
sorts of journalistic declarations about Debian that would undermine
the project
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:41:04PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hmmm. I *hope* they manage to achieve some of this, but I'll admit to
being skeptical. There's been a lot more heat than light in
discussions I've been seen in and around the OSI in the last few
years. It would be nice to see them
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:44:36PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
One thing we have not talked about, is that of subkey validity. It is
not that kosher to have anything signed in stable with a subkey which
will not be valid for the lifetime of stable, so we should keep that in
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
This seems to suggest that having multiple copies of the PGP key
somehow improves security. However, at least for some attack
scenarios, it's quite the opposite.
I'm sorry if I was too terse. The point of a backup copy of your
master
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:52:02AM +0100, Milan Zamazal wrote:
I also agree that having a best practice document is useful.
Here are some suggestions for clarification:
- The wiki page says:
Meta-discussion note: the wiki page referred to is
http://wiki.debian.org/subkeys -- and all the
On a mailing list far far away, someone wrote:
Personally, I think some guidelines for DD's about securing their
personal machines where their private keys are located would be a good
idea. It would be a lot better than just having a vague and ineffable
thing called trust.
I agree. I offer
I'll note, in public, that after meeting with Steve in person, and
having had a friendly and constructive discussion about DEP5 with him,
I'll be stepping down from an active drivership role, at least for
a while, and Steve will take care of getting any linguistic or other
changes that he feels
Oh dear.
Linking to spdx.org is clearly a bad idea. We should link to
locations that are stable.
This should really be fixed in the debian-policy git, but since
any changes there are currently having massive lag time, I'll just
Cc debian-project to notify people of the problem, while we figure
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:19:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Currently, the full text of the licenses is only available in the
ulink
-url=http://spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-list;working
version
-of the SPDX license list/ulink.
+
Welcome Charles, and also Ben Finney, as new DEP0 drivers.
I've added you as admins to the Alioth project.
Please add yourselves to the DEP0 document as drivers,
and drop me at the same time. Thanks.
--
Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
In 2007 Stefano, Dato, and I cooked up the Debian Enhancement Proposal
system. It is meant as an lightweight system to keep track of discussions,
and record what has been decided. Each DEP has one or more drivers,
and ideally, only the drivers need to care about it. Everyone else
just responds on
On ti, 2011-04-12 at 23:13 -0700, Victor Jones wrote:
Audible says At this time Audible is not compatible with the Linux operating
system. Audible is actively pursuing compability with Linux in all versions
by pursuing support from the open source community that develops this
platform.
I
On ke, 2011-03-09 at 10:16 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that it is a good idea to clarify the Policy. Would you like to open a
bug or shall I ?
I actually wonder if the DEP's appendix is really needed… I think that it
appeared when I tried to un-brand the proposal. But this was
On su, 2011-01-23 at 12:29 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I have always been lukewarm on the idea of specifying within the DEP itself
that extra fields can be added without standards-compliance implications.
I don't think people should be adding random fields here without first
*defining* those
On la, 2011-01-22 at 14:47 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So a License could appear without a Copyright (to indicate the effective
license of a work), but a Copyright should not appear without a License.
If that's true, I think it's important to call it out in the spec.
I'll add the following
On la, 2011-01-22 at 18:48 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:42:17PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
There seems to be consensus to add an optional License field to the
first paragraph. […]
Here is a first attempt
On to, 2011-01-20 at 09:42 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Agreed to both, but don't underestimate the risks of copy-paste. I
suggest the attached patch, which uses an explicit invalid placeholder
in the examples, hoping it's clear enough that it's a placeholder.
Applied, thanks.
--
On ke, 2011-01-19 at 20:55 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
That appeared inappropriately line-wrapped when I received it. Here it
is as an attachment.
Applied, thanks.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On ti, 2011-01-18 at 16:05 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I therefore recommend to instead switch to the versioned format again,
which also - now that we are back to Subversion - fits within 72 chars:
Format: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?rev=162
From
On ti, 2011-01-18 at 08:00 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am hoping that given SPDX is advancing towards beta release, they will
fill these pages in a not too long time. But in the meantime, we could
add a link to their license table, if necessary:
diff --git a/dep5.mdwn b/dep5.mdwn
index
On ma, 2011-01-17 at 21:11 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I am worried that there was a misundertanding about the purpose of the
first paragraph's Copyright field: from my reading of the current
version
On ti, 2011-01-18 at 02:35 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
...except I am now forced to *duplicate* those excluded files in a
non-machine-extractable format inside the Source: field due to that
recent simplification. Or continue to duplicate that info across
debian/copyright and
Charles and Ben have offered competing patches for Source, one making it
optional (but relying on the policy to make it implicitly mandatory in
most cases), the other making it required (but allowing just a mention
of upstream sources not existing, when that is the case).
Is anyone in favor of
On ti, 2011-01-18 at 17:03 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm happy to see public domain added as a license keyword.
This is the consensus, it seems. Would anyone like to suggest a patch to
implement it?
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
On ke, 2011-01-19 at 10:27 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I am vehemently opposed to Ben's patch, which is effectively an end
run around Debian Policy.
That's a fair criticism. I should make a bug report against Policy.
Good, then I'll apply Charles's
Applied all three patches, thanks.
On to, 2011-01-13 at 09:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
I think I agree with your proposal to link to SPDX. Alternatively, we
could collect the licenses as attachments to the spec
On pe, 2011-01-14 at 17:05 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 08:56:16AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 03:20:37AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
and it's ok by Policy, then I'd be happy to apply a patch someone
provides. :)
Index: dep5
On to, 2011-01-13 at 17:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yeah, I think Source should be optional for native packages.
Would anyone oppose making such a change? Does Policy allow it? If
there's consensus for, and it's ok by Policy, then I'd be happy to apply
a patch someone provides. :)
--
On su, 2011-01-09 at 20:42 +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
Le vendredi 7 janvier 2011 11:09:59, Dominique Dumont a écrit :
I'll update DEP5 description (aka Debian::Dpkg::Copyright model [1]) as
soon as I've stabilised the latch batch of modifications in config-model.
I've taken a stab at
On ke, 2011-01-12 at 19:16 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Is that so?!? Then please clarify what the paranthesis below means:
Files:
Required (not in header paragraph).
It means that in the first paragraph (called header paragraph for
reasons I am not entirely sure of), the Files field
On ma, 2011-01-10 at 19:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The current version of the DEP specifies that the differences with the SPDX
format will be tracked. My understanding of this, and the discussions we had
before, is that we will use the same short names than SPDX unless specified
On to, 2011-01-06 at 20:55 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I have just pushed out the CANDIDATE version of DEP5 to the DEP
subversion repository. DEP5 is the specification for a machine-readable
format for debian/copyright files, the use of which will be optional.
I consider this version
I have just pushed out the CANDIDATE version of DEP5 to the DEP
subversion repository. DEP5 is the specification for a machine-readable
format for debian/copyright files, the use of which will be optional.
I consider this version (r153) to be ready for production use. Those
using an earlier
a stable URL
Of course, if any bugs in the spec are found, they can and should still
be fixed. I hope that no large changes will turn out to be necessary.
On ma, 2010-12-20 at 21:43 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
A summary of differences found by Charles and others, if I have
understood correctly
On pe, 2010-12-31 at 10:38 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Lars, can you point us to a rationale for that to-do item?
Er, sorry, I can't. I misread my notes (mixed up FDL with the .0 stuff).
I'll remove that from the wiki. Thanks for pointing it out, Ben.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki
On to, 2010-12-23 at 09:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, let's get back to the basic principles at stake. The point hardly is
Bzr vs SVN; rather it seems to be whether the working draft of a DEP
should be constantly updated and trivially accessible, for instance on
the web at the
On to, 2010-12-23 at 12:34 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
for those who are just marking mails in this thread as read... ;-)
On Donnerstag, 23. Dezember 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
Using revision 135 of the DEP from svn.debian.org is a waste of time, for
the people who would like to
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 15:29 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The canonical URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ has been updated too
- but by hand, with a warning at the top that it might go stale.
Actually, I was quite happy with the way things were. The draft of DEP5
in svn was and is the
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but
notice that it is still (in Bazaar
On ke, 2010-12-22 at 16:50 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I respect your great work here, Lars, but disagree with your style.
If you disagree with my reasons for doing edits in bzr and not pushing
changes to svn all the time, you can argue those. You even have an
excellent chance of convincing
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:15 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
Or for one page that links to both:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal
Thanks, picked that one.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX has BSD 3 and 4 clause licenses with placeholders
= ignore: we'll just have many variants of BSD (called
other-FOO or whatever)
Related
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 09:25 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:43:53PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
adds a .0 to license version
= ignore? the difference should not matter much
= maybe suggest to SPDX
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:22AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The License shortname list includes an other name describes as
being any other custom license. Nowhere
I'll respond to several mails in this one.
* patch from Zack to fix broken example applied, thanks
* added SPDX section, since nobody objected to it; with gregoa's fix
* yes, we (the DEP5 drivers) have communicated with Kate Stewart and the
SPDX people, though not very much yet; I don't have
On to, 2010-12-16 at 17:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Uhm, this unfortunately is not the latest draft; Lars: can you
confirm that the diff produced by Charles still applies?
Do we even have any newer draft publicly
On to, 2010-12-16 at 14:08 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
* The link in For versions, consult the Perl Foundation doesn't
lead to the expected page.
Can you give a good link?
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
A summary of differences found by Charles and others, if I have
understood correctly, with comments.
* SPDX sometimes adds a license version, when we don't, or
adds a .0 to license version
= ignore? the difference should not matter much
= maybe suggest to SPDX they drop the .0
* SPDX does
The remaining parts of DEP5 are all related to licenses. I propose the
following:
* Add a mention of and link to SPDX to the License specifications
chapter.
## SPDX
[SPDX](http://spdx.org/) is an attempt to standardize a format
for communicating the components,
On ke, 2010-11-24 at 13:39 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
Dear DEP5 Committee ;)
In the light of previous discussions [1] and the presentation of our little
effort at debconf10 [2, 3 for PDF], and now following your recommendation
I am RFCing for References* fields to be used in
On ma, 2010-11-22 at 10:53 +, Philip Hands wrote:
Not that I think there's anything wrong with what you already have, so
go with whatever you prefer.
I'm lazy so I'll with the current wording, in the hope that my
assumption of the high level of common sense turns out to be correct. :)
--
On la, 2010-11-13 at 20:12 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements
verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever?
Or should we suggest that they can also shorten them to, say, 2010, J.
Random Hacker? I'm fine
On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:13 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Extra fields can be added to any paragraph. No prefixing is
necessary. Future versions of the `debian/copyright`
specification will attempt to avoid conflicting specifications
for widely used extra fields
On su, 2010-11-14 at 11:37 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:12:15PM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
The editorial changes, plus these two items, are the final things left
for DEP5, except for the review for licenses, shortnames and SPDX
compatibility.
Hi Lars
On su, 2010-11-14 at 12:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Lars and everybody,
here are two answers and a proposition for editorial changes.
* Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements
verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever?
Given
On to, 2010-10-28 at 17:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Craig Small csm...@debian.org writes:
This is the collecting part I hope is cleared up. Do something like
grep -i copyright `find . -name '*.[ch]'`
over a non trivial project, especially one that has been around for
years and you
I would like to propose the attached patch, which makes some editorial
changes to the DEP5 draft. It was bugging me that the document structure
was so deep (four levels of sections in some places), and details of
Files were in two places, and so on. So I re-arranged things a bit more
to my liking,
A couple more points about DEP5:
* Should we suggest people keep the upstream copyright statements
verbatim, including the word Copyright or c-in-a-circle or whatever?
Or should we suggest that they can also shorten them to, say, 2010, J.
Random Hacker? I'm fine with either. Currently the
(Dropped planet@ and leader@, who are probably not intrested in this
anymore.)
On to, 2010-11-11 at 20:06 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:03:38PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Tshepang Lekhonkhobe tshep...@gmail.com [2010-11-11 16:14:37 CET]:
snippage
What one does on
On to, 2010-11-11 at 14:01 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
-1 for flattr; it's a great way to contribute a few cents; and these
people are great contributors to Debian anyways, so why don't they get
rewarded?
while on that topic, maybe each package on package.qa.d.o should have
a flattr
On la, 2010-11-06 at 11:44 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I find this comment quite inappropriate. Do you think that news about
Debian are burden on one of the most important news media Debian has?
I, for one, find it unproductive to duplicate debian-devel-announce on
Planet Debian, if it is done
On la, 2010-11-06 at 13:48 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
_I_ read d-d-a anyway, and I can filter (so dont mind double posts). Having a
combined planet would be good for those who are less into Debian, but still
enough to be curious. And in todays time, many of them would probably not
This is continuing the discussion from 2.5 months ago.
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
relevant
On to, 2010-10-28 at 19:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
It may be confusing that the header paragraph Copyright field has not the same
format as the files paragraph Copyright fields (‘line based list’). Perpaps
people writing parsers may comment on this as well…
That was a bug. Fixed.
Since
On ti, 2010-10-26 at 15:53 +0800, Naufal Alee wrote:
I'm using SBC with ARM and using Debian Etch. Usually, I download any
package at Debian website but now I can't see the etch package
anymore. Can I get it? or Where can I get it?
The etch release of Debian is no longer supported. Because of
I am going to be quite blunt. Please be forewarned.
On pe, 2010-10-08 at 13:39 +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
Does it? With regards to any assymetric relationship, benefit is in finding
common grounds. What I mean is, think of an extreme scenario, one where only
newbies asking for help
On pe, 2010-10-08 at 00:19 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Exctly my point. What all places can we expect people to track ?
debian-announce for users, and debian-devel-announce for developers.
Everything else is up to you.
ask.debian.net is not taking anything away from you. You can ignore it
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 14:53 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The current DEP5 draft says:
* **`Files`**
* Required for all but the first paragraph.
If omitted from the first paragraph,
this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
* Syntax: white space separated list
* List
1 - 100 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
