On ke, 2010-09-15 at 09:45 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Good point about debian/watch.
The simplest proposal right now is to make the Source field free-form
text, and since I like simplicity, I support this. More detailed
specification for documenting mechanical rules of transformations
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 17:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
Makes sense to me.
Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
being pristine in the sense
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 10:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I, using my FTPMaster hat, do care a lot that we do not get
$whateveritsname with upload rights that never ever had to show at least
the basic understanding of packaging work. Looking at all the errors
existing Developers do, even
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 17:38 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
This is only about the field in debian/copyright, not about the field in
debian/control. We don't need the former, only the latter.
In that case I'll remove the X-Autobuild stuff from the DEP5 draft.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 14:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There should still be an explanation in debian/copyright of what that
script does, since that's the Policy-required location for specifying
where the upstream source came from.
Oh, I thought only devref was requiring that to be in
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 00:07 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
Personally, I'd like a nice machine-readable list of files/dirs/globs that
should be removed from the tarball. I'd like it to be kept in a canonical
location in the source tarball (debian/copyright, perhaps?)
This all sounds good, with
On ti, 2010-09-07 at 06:24 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Nobody has commented on this in any way, so I assume I am still perfect
and everything I say is flawless. I am attaching a proposed patch to
rewrite the filename pattern section. Unless there are objections within
a couple of days, I
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 of patterns indicating files covered by the license
and copyright
The current DEP5 draft has this paragraph:
For a ''non-free'' package to be autobuilt, `debian/copyright` must
contain an
explanation that autobuilding is not forbidden (see
[20061129152824.gt2...@mails.so.argh.org](http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/2
From the DEP5 wiki page:
Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-devel
about whether repackaging just to remove
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 23:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
That took more than a couple of days, but I've now merged the changes
and pushed them out to the bzr trunk.
Hi Lars, and bzr experts,
I do not know what happened
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files at
the same place as distributed files.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyright to
document copyright information of files that are not part
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package,
without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that
specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to
all files would be
On ti, 2010-09-07 at 13:28 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Do anyone else feel that I should be mentioned?
I do. Added.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On ti, 2010-08-31 at 11:10 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
+ Larz Wirzenius
Don't forgot yourself! :)
Done. If anyone remembers anyone else who should be added, please tell
me, and I'll add them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On la, 2010-08-28 at 19:51 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
To make this go forward, I suggest that we adopt Charles's suggestion of
very simple globbing, since that's going to be compatible with more
powerful syntaxes if we want to adopt those later. Further, I suggest we
not treat the slash
: Machine-readable debian/copyright]]
- Title: Machine-readable debian/copyright
- DEP: 5
- State: DRAFT
- Date: 2010-08-23
- Drivers: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org,
- Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi
- URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
- License:
- Copying and distribution of this file
On ke, 2010-09-01 at 19:27 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Unless you consider it's necessary to be a DD for this I could join as
well. After all, I spend *a lot* of time reading Debian mailing lists
and I have become familiar with a lot of processes. It's time I put this
to some good use :-)
On to, 2010-08-26 at 08:43 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The Files field needs to specify patterns on filenames. We need to
specify how to do that.
Here is my understanding of the current situation:
* There is no particular consensus on filename patterns.
* Charles suggests a very simple
I have just committed the change below to disallow alternative syntaxes
for DEP-5, since having, say, YAML in addition to RFC-822 style headers
is silly. I did not discuss this beforehand since I do not expect anyone
objecting to it at this stage of the DEP. It might have been relevant
early on in
Given the large number of people who have worked on DEP-5 over the
years, a section acknowledging their work would be a good idea, I think.
Below is a start of one. Could someone who's been involved with this
longer than I have make a list of missing people?
=== modified file 'dep5.mdwn'
---
On ma, 2010-08-23 at 14:50 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On su, 2010-08-22 at 15:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It's... okay. It's a little strange, but I don't think it would be
confusing since it is a summary of the license text in a machine-readable
format, in essence.
ACK, you and Ben
On ke, 2010-08-25 at 14:07 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Looks fine to me, although as a very minor point I'd replace Debian
ftpmaster team with upstream, since that's the more typical case.
Fair enough. Done.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On to, 2010-08-26 at 09:21 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Common comments come on.
Heh.
- Will paragraphs that contain only a Comment field be valid ?
Each paragraph is either a header (Format required), file license
specification (Files required), or stand-alone license description
(License
On to, 2010-08-26 at 08:39 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Adding an exclusion syntax with ‘!’ has some use, but it would be to the
expense of being able to paste the field's value, and between the two I prefer
being able to paste.
I, on the other hand, would prefer to have exclusion syntax, to
On la, 2010-08-21 at 22:30 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Can't we just fold long copyright header fields similarly?
The issue is that one Copyright field (or header) will contain many
copyright statements, and if we want to automatically parse those, we
need a way to see where a new one
On su, 2010-08-22 at 16:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I also feel a contradiction to call ‘free-form’ some text that is formatted
according to some markup rules, even if they are simple. I propose to replace
instances like:
Free-form text formatted like package long descriptions
by:
I've attached the current diff for the general file syntax changes.
=== modified file 'dep5.mdwn'
--- dep5.mdwn 2010-08-21 09:05:12 +
+++ dep5.mdwn 2010-08-22 22:08:51 +
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
* Single-line values.
* White space separated lists.
* Line based lists.
-* Free-form text
...@debian.org,
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi
URL: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
@@ -70,6 +70,36 @@
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-controlsyntax
for details.
+There are four kinds values for fields. Each field specifies which
+kind is allowed.
+
+* Single-line
On su, 2010-08-22 at 23:36 -0300, Valessio S Brito wrote:
The proposal is to have something similar to http://webchat.freenode.net/
Using cgiirc on webchat.debian.org or irc.debian.org or .net
The one place I know that advertises a web IRC gateway is the Koha
project
On pe, 2010-08-20 at 16:52 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The fact that we're both expressing this in terms of preference means, I
think, both that this doesn't meet Lars's wave of opposition standard and
that we're not definitely in bikeshed territory. :) I support Lars in
deciding this
On pe, 2010-08-20 at 17:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think a better approach would be to, once the document has settled down,
publish it with a version number and give that version of the document a
permanent URL. So, for instance, we would publish DEP-5 1.0 and give it a
URL something
On la, 2010-08-21 at 20:32 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I'm OK with saying that multiline fields should use the Description
markup, especially noting Charles's point about only using the long
description part, when appropriate. This simplifies things quite a lot.
I'll word a concrete patch
On la, 2010-08-21 at 01:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
How would that tie in with updating it via the normal policy process? I
thought we'd keep the file in the debian-policy package for future
updates.
I was assuming that's how we'd get to a 1.1 version. I haven't read DEP-0
recently,
On la, 2010-08-21 at 02:15 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
What happens when the copyright statement is longer than a line? I have a
bunch of those, such as:
Good point. I see at least thw following possible solutions:
* Keep one line per copyright statement, but make the lines be long.
(This is
On la, 2010-08-21 at 15:47 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
I just wonder what this list would be meant to serves which can't be deemed
suitable for -mentors. Many upstreams (regardless they have any preliminary
packages of their software or not) already use -mentors for entering Debian
one way
On su, 2010-08-22 at 08:00 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Could we take advantage of the natural “©” marker to indicate each
copyright statement?
That's an interesting idea, but would people in general find it easy or
difficult to write that character? (I'd have to copy-paste it, for
instance, since
On la, 2010-08-21 at 16:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ideally, I'd like to just copy and paste upstream's copyright statements
into debian/copyright and maybe do some compaction, which leads me to
prefer a free-form field. Do we think that people are going to want to
parse and extract
On pe, 2010-08-20 at 14:55 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Now, I've no idea if the above would be appropriate for the upstream
front desk or not. I leave it up to you to decide whether it's worth
trying or not.
I think a debian-upstre...@lists.debian.org mailing list, open to
everyone and
On to, 2010-08-19 at 06:56 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
A structured field makes it easier to parse; but as I said earlier, if
we decide to keep (and at some point use) them we still can do so, if
additional fields are allowed.
There was a little bit of discussion on #debian-perl about this.
On to, 2010-08-19 at 10:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
my presonal point of view about fields in this DEP is that they should be
required only if they are strictly necessary, and mentionned as optional only
if there is a reasonable plan to parse and exploit the data.
I am not aware of a
On su, 2010-08-15 at 06:25 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
So we have at least three suggestions on the table now:
1. Rename Maintainer: to Contact:
2. Rename Maintainer: to Upstream-Contact: and Name: to Upstream-Name:
3. Drop both Maintainer: and Name: completely, even as optional fields
There would seem to be at least a rough consensus that DEP-5 should
follow Policy 5.1 on control file syntax. The open question how to
specify that: it is my understanding that most people favor just
referring to the relevant Policy section and not duplicate things in
DEP-5, but since that is also
On ma, 2010-08-16 at 16:19 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* a 24-hour moratorium on posting about DEP-5 at all
That went well. Thank you everyone for giving space to breathe.
* after that is over, not discussing every possible topic at once, just
a couple at a time
I've commented on two topics
On ti, 2010-08-17 at 18:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Those exchanges aren't the actual license or copyright information, which
can still be stated in a structured form. They're usually just defenses
of why thet claimed license information is what it is (when it may, for
example, contradict
On su, 2010-08-15 at 13:55 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
That sounds like a good idea. As long as I would not be alone, I would
be willing to join such a list and answer questions from our
upstreams.
That's two of us. Anyone else who'd like to help?
Two is enough to kick this off, though. I'll ask
On la, 2010-08-14 at 21:39 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
This raises something else I was thinking about. I believe that technical
DEPs, if adopted, should move into the debian-policy package for further
maintenance.
I agree with this, with both my DEP-5 and DEP-0 hats on. (It's cold in
On su, 2010-08-15 at 01:32 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
That seems sensible to me. I think it will require some significant
restructuring of the text, to declare the License and Copyright fields in
advance of references to them in the discussion of the header stanza, so
maybe we should
On su, 2010-08-15 at 16:01 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I attached three consecutive patches, that I think reflect our current
discussion.
- The first one is just a re-iteration of Lars' patch, in
which I added the title of §5.1, and the version of the current Policy.
Your patch also
On ma, 2010-08-16 at 12:34 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Give me a break, please.
Let's give everyone a break. DEP-5 has a long, complicated history, and
various people's feelings or egos have been bruised over time. It would
be good to avoid doing any more of that. The current hectic pace isn't
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
...
How about this (written without looking at the detailed wording of the
document, so may need some massaging to fit into the flow):
FWIW, I like Steve's patch and Russ's addition to it. Anyone
On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:18 -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
their modules in Debian.
Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in d/copyright (or somewhere
else but I don't know a better place) we are not able to provide a
On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:54 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Similarly, the Name field is not data that policy requires be in
debian/copyright. On my latest read of DEP5, I thought this was
completly redundant with the already redundant source package name in
the changelog, control file, etc.
There's a
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Proliferation of file formats is a bug, not a feature, when you're trying
to make things readable by software.
Indeed.
I believe most of these issues are already addressed by referring to the
syntax description in Policy with the
On la, 2010-08-14 at 19:56 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Lars Wirzenius
| On la, 2010-08-14 at 14:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
| Where is this bzr repository
|
| http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep5/trunk/
|
| I don't know bzr.debian.org provides a web interface. I will, however
On la, 2010-08-14 at 16:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
After looking at http://spdx.org/licenses/, I realise that the very
existence of a license list in DEP-5 is in question (not in this thread).
However, since I had a version of the DEP with a more comprehensive use
of web links for
On la, 2010-08-14 at 15:05 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
-The `debian/copyright` file must be machine-interpretable, yet
-human-readable, while communicating all mandated upstream information,
-copyright notices and licensing details.
The rest is good, but I like
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 08:00 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2010-08-12, Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi wrote:
* Various things are easier if debian/copyright can be parsed and
interpreted by software, rather than being free-form text. For
example, answering questions like what stuff is GPLv2
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 08:04 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2010-08-13, Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi wrote:
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
it more difficult for me and for anyone who read
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 11:39 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
However, there is a big, big problem with DEP-5, and it is named
/usr/share/doc/chromium-browser/copyright. It is 1.3 mb in size (out of
a 25 mb package), and completely unreadable and unusable. It appears to
be machine generated, and is full
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:49 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
My opinion on this is that using # as a comment marker is already a
diversion from RFC 5322 and I was surprised that dpkg had support for it.
If we want this to be used outside of Debian, sticking strictly to the
syntax for RFC 5322 headers
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 17:11 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I would read approval in this context as approval by all the people who
are interested in using something like DEP-5. In other words, consensus
that, should one want to do this sort of thing, this is the way in which
we're going to do it,
One more piece of meta:
We the drivers are now using the wiki page[0] to track outstanding
issues, in the interest of transparency. We'll be updating it as we go
along.
Further, in order to avoid having everything discussed at the same time,
I think it would be good to discuss one or two things
On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Renaming the Format-Specification field:
This seems like a completely noncontroversial suggestion. The only
reason to avoid doing it is to avoid having to fix all the existing
files, but since they need to be fixed for other things anyway,
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 20:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Am I missing some other Debian document somewhere that says we should be
providing upstream contact information in debian/copyright? I realize
that lots of people do this, but it's not at all clear to me that it makes
sense to put that
On la, 2010-08-14 at 14:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Where is this bzr repository
http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep5/trunk/
I don't know bzr.debian.org provides a web interface. I will, however,
make the latest revision be automatically published so everyone can view
it without having to check
The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
for DEP-5[0].
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
The story so far, in a very rough summary:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 13:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Stefano, as admin of the DEP Alioth project (I think that the others retired),
would you agree to create a dedicated mailing list for DEP-5? I volunteer for
the mailman administration, and for taking the responsibility that no major
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few comments:
- Personally I find the format
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5
On to, 2010-08-12 at 10:32 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
can be translated into SPDX, and vice versa. [There's no reason for us
to do all of the hard work
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
Thanks, that's an interesting
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The “paragraph” format that is popular in Debian control files does not allow
the use of free comments. [- - -]
...
I propose to use a simpler format, that is trivial to parse:
Having debian/copyright use the same file format as
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright
I gave a talk[0] at Debconf10 about my experiences switching from
being a Debian developer to being an upstream developer.
As part of that talk I suggested two things:
* a guide or checklist for upstreams so they know how do things so their
software is easier for distributions to package
* a
On ke, 2010-08-11 at 10:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Do you know about http://wiki.debian.org/GettingPackaged ? It looks like there
are many overlaps between this page and the one you created…
Thanks, Charles, for pointing that out. That page does, indeed, have
much overlap with my
the DEP0 driver team to help maintain the
DEP process itself, please e-mail Zack at z...@debian.org.
- - -
Thanks, and happy hacking!
Stefano Zacchiroli
Lars Wirzenius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
ke, 2009-07-29 kello 12:46 -0300, Margarita Manterola kirjoitti:
Discussing about this on irc, some people seemed to agree with my view
that the female images are too sexual, and that the image of the
notebook on the pillow is disturbing.
I agree with Marga in that I don't think these images
la, 2009-07-25 kello 23:12 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
If what remains is an attack upon an *idea*, so be it; ideas don't have
feelings and are not automatically deserving of respect or politeness.
“This is a silly idea” attacks no-one and is impolite to no-one. Let
those who support the idea
la, 2009-07-25 kello 09:16 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
You are making the assumption that the authors reaction to Bad
is less negative than the reaction to Silly. While this is
subjective, I do not think it is without contention:
My hasty re-wording has now given the wrong
usually act just as secretaries for a given proposal
and it doesn't look like that wide commit access rights are needed to
that end.
What do other people in the project think?
Lars Wirzenius, Stefano Zacchiroli, Adeodato Simó
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
ke, 2009-06-17 kello 17:24 +1000, Pascal Hakim kirjoitti:
It's really easy to find people to talk at mini-conf once LCA has
started or is about to start - there's just that many DDs who attend.
It's much harder to get someone to commit to something early enough
that you can get it included
I promised to get back to re-thinking Debian membership processes. After
everything that's happened, I think it would be best to postpone
discussions about this until after Lenny is released.
I am planning to start or join that discussion after the release. (And,
yes, I hope to do a DEP on it,
su, 2008-10-26 kello 09:24 +0200, Kadath kirjoitti:
Hello.
Checkout this website, it looks like they steal Debian logotype.
http://www.pure-organic-baby-food.co.uk/
It's not an exact copy of the Debian logo, and Debian does not have a
monopoly on swirls. Thus, I think it is not a problem.
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 23:47 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
I think it would be more sensible to kick out the people who don't do
anything for the project *except* vote.
That is certainly a good point.
The reason I propose counting voting only is that that's the only action
all DD would have
la, 2008-10-25 kello 09:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
A scenario I want to avoid for example is that newcomers can alter the
keyring adding tens of friends. Such a possibility would imply that
if Debian as a project fails *once* in checking IDs and motivations
for *a single*
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and
are members of the Debian project. It's not all bad, but on the whole it
makes some of the worst parts of Debian become worse. It concentrates
power into fewer hands, removes some of the benefits of the Debian
Maintainer
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 11:42 +0200, Michael Hanke kirjoitti:
What does this mean? It automatically ends after a vote or two years?
Or
is it rather (semi)automatically extended by continued contributions of a yet
to be defined type (e.g. package uploads, bug reports/fixes)?
You become a member,
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
*
The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any member to change them,
Since you refused to explain on IRC, please explain the rationale
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 13:36 +0200, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.24.1044 +0200]:
* Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by the
Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 16:56 +0200, Wouter Verhelst kirjoitti:
If you insist. Note that I'll vote against it -- I've never liked
procedures whose sole purpose is to change procedures.
For what it's worth, as one of the three people who suggested DEP in the
first place, I would be unhappy to see
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 22:51 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
* Members may be expelled via the normal General Resolution process,
with
a simple majority. Ftpmasters may temporarily limit upload rights in an
emergency.
So expulsion by DAM's is a power you are proposing to
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 22:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
The keyring does not have to be exposed directly. It could work via a
delaying queue or stanging area. Changes commited to be applied to the
keyring could be made publicly available for peer-review. This would
make it possible
ti, 2008-09-16 kello 18:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri kirjoitti:
I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers
the kind of people who use gNewSense.
I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep far
from Debian the worst nutcases.
And the Diplomat of the
pe, 2008-09-05 kello 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:20:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
on http://dep.debian.net, using the same license as DEP0, but
dep.debian.net is down currently, so I can't check what the license is
:)
dep.debian.net was just
ke, 2008-08-20 kello 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog kirjoitti:
The maintainer is still king and if he decides that the NMU was not a good
idea, he would have no other choice than skipping a revision in the
changelog. That would be confusing.
It would, however, make things a bit more explicit
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license.
I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 04:34 -0700, Richard Hecker kirjoitti:
I just do not see the value when some
Johnny-come-lately decides that all the decisions need to
be reworked.
I'd like to add my voice to the choir of people who think the length of
participation in Debian development should not
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 22:01 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Please come back in 2008! ;-)
You speak as an elder that doesn't want to move forward
But no, you prefer to not explain your problem...
Please stop this
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 09:49 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
handled with a high priority.
I agree with that, of course.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
101 - 200 of 265 matches
Mail list logo
