Just one other example:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 05:19:01PM +0100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On 2021-03-05 16:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:52:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it
>
> So there's no legal
On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 16:52 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Finally the license statement is all about redistribution ... and
> than upstream says: Do not redistribute.
They appear to be fine with redistribution, just not with wide
distribution by a popular Linux distribution, which has a stable
On 2021-03-05 16:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:52:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it
was only a few months ago when we had the discussion with them.
I intend to draw it into a different audience[1] but not in
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 09:52:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it
> was only a few months ago when we had the discussion with them.
I intend to draw it into a different audience[1] but not in the next
week where I'm busy with real
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 08:09 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I think I will open an ITP for this package
...
> I also intend to negotiate this again.
It seems unlikely that upstream will have changed their mind, it
was only a few months ago when we had the discussion with them.
--
bye,
pabs
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 08:09 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> I also intend to negotiate this again. While the copyright holders
> are
>
> 2018 The University of Texas at Austin
> 2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
> 2018 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
> 2019 ExplosionAI GmbH
Part
Hi Mo and Paul,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:31:19PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 06:21 +, M. Zhou wrote:
>
> > the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging.
> > https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32
>
> I suggest you cease packaging
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 06:21 +, M. Zhou wrote:
> the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging.
> https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32
I suggest you cease packaging this and anything that depends on it.
The developers reference mentions that packaging
For your information,
the upstream holds a very negative attitude towards debian packaging.
https://github.com/explosion/cython-blis/issues/32
CC'ed pabs.
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 17:51 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:26:11PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >
> > Andreas
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:26:11PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>
> Andreas Tille writes:
>
> > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian-science/python-cython-blis
>
> Hi,
>
> I think this is a typo. It should be
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/python-cython-blis
>
> right?
Sure.
Andreas Tille writes:
> [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian-science/python-cython-blis
Hi,
I think this is a typo. It should be
https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/python-cython-blis
right?
Best,
Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Anastasiia,
I've found your packaging for cython-blis on Salsa. Since I need this
module as a new dependency for python-thinc I have polished it to what
is considered the packaging style inside the Debian Science team (which
also included to name the repository same as the source package -
12 matches
Mail list logo
