El 13/4/25 a las 15:22, Simon McVittie escribió:
I think there are two subtly different things that you could mean by "with
nocheck":
1. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, but no special build profiles
- therefore build-dependencies are still installed
2. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck DEB_BUILD_PROFI
On 4/16/25 12:34 PM, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
BTW, FSF considers Apache 2.0 as a good license and that "it's
unfortunate that the Apache License 2.0 isn't compatible with some free
software licenses like GPLv2". Compatibility with it was one important
goal for GPLv3. So, this incompatibility was not
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 23:04:47 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
If you need one of the team-maintained r-cran-* packages on a 32-bit or
on a big endian architectures, which are not supported upstream, please
contact me on the debian-r list and let's see how we can share the
workload.
It might be b
On 16 April 2025 at 18:31, Paul Gevers wrote:
| I haven't checked why they are there, but there are several packages in
| the key package set [1]. I would be good to check beforehand what
| happens if they are removed on those architectures. I think it's best to
| assume for now that you can't
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Uwe Kleine-König
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, uklei...@debian.org
* Package name: libpwm
Upstream Contact: Uwe Kleine-König
* License : LGPL + 0BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : library and tools for interacting wi
Le Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2025-04-16 at 07:27 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Yes that seems likely. I think that the decision in other distributions
> > may have had more to do with aligning interests with organization who
> > fund them, tho
Hi Dirk,
On 16-04-2025 18:55, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| [1] https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.yaml.cgi
That appears to be a different set of packages.
The packages spotted in the original list, I assume you're talking about
all of them except maybe cantor and vtk9?
boot: r-recom
Hi Santiago,
On 16-04-2025 15:04, Santiago Vila wrote:
For reference, I've used this usertag for all the bugs (26 new and 3 old):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-
q...@lists.debian.org;tag=ftbfs-nocheck-profile
In one of the reports I read this:
"""
* When a packa
Hi,
On 16-04-2025 16:04, Charles Plessy wrote:
If you need one of the team-maintained r-cran-* packages on a 32-bit or
on a big endian architectures, which are not supported upstream, please
contact me on the debian-r list and let's see how we can share the
workload. Otherwise I will start the
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 18:40:00 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
In one of the reports I read this:
"""
* When a package is built with the nocheck profile, it means:
- DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
(the tests should be skipped during the build)
- DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck
(Build-Depends marked are not
Hi all,
let's be realistic, the r-cran-* packages team-maintained by me and
others are not in a good shape. And given their complex net of
cross-dependencies, there is the risk of removing a large number of them
from Trixie before the release.
When I check the UDD maintainer dasboard to set my
Hello,
anyone else has the same problem as me? I've been trying to do an upload since
yesterday night but it keeps failing.
Uploading fortunes-it_2.14-1_amd64.changes: 421 Data timeout. Reconnect.
Sorry.
Is it just me?
--
Salvo Tomaselli
"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso D
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 04:08:14PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> anyone else has the same problem as me? I've been trying to do an upload
> since
> yesterday night but it keeps failing.
>
> Uploading fortunes-it_2.14-1_amd64.changes: 421 Data timeout. Reconnect.
> Sorry.
>
> Is
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 19:59:47 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I wish reproducible-builds people would activate DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
for the second build
https://bugs.debian.org/786644
smcv
El 16/4/25 a las 18:52, Simon McVittie escribió:
the bug template should be more like
The contents of the resulting package are meant to be identical to
the package produced by a normal build, but this was not checked
during this particular mass-rebuild
or something along those l
Hi,
On Wed, 2025-04-16 at 17:12 +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Le Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 a écrit :
>
> > Debian has always allowed GPL-2-only code linked against GPL-3+-only
> > libraries such as the libstdc++ or GCC runtime libraries. (You ignore
> > that libraries aside
Simon wrote:
it would be better if future bug reporting for this scenario didn't
encourage maintainers to implement nocheck incorrectly.
You are absolutely right and I apologize for my mistake. Not just future
but also *present*, so I've now added a clarification note to all the
bugs I reported
Henrik Ahlgren writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>
>> I think the idea behind the "proprietary system library" GPL exception
>> is to make it possible to distribute GPL binaries linked to non-free
>> system libraries on systems where that is pretty much unavoidable, e.g.
>> system libraries on A
On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 09:09:25AM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 7066677e-e899-4143-af5e-710364fc2673
> [2] Choice 1: Gianfranco Costamagna
> [2] Choice 2: Julian Andres Klode
> [1] Choice 3: Andr
Pirate Praveen writes:
> But the crucial point here is that the git upstream is choosing not to
> correct that mistake by moving to GPLv3 (probably they don't like some
> other changes introduced) or giving another specific exception to
> linking with Apache 2.0.
Well, Torvalds founded Git, and
On 16.04.25 09:46, Henrik Ahlgren wrote:
But we can also just decide to synchronize and
contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises.
Linus Torvalds should have known better than to be *that* optimistic.
The number of such notices might serve as a rough indicator for
On 16.04.25 07:27, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I think the idea behind the "proprietary system library" GPL exception
is to make it possible to distribute GPL binaries linked to non-free
system libraries on systems where that is pretty much unavoidable,
which, if you remove the "proprietary" and "no
On 16 April 2025 at 19:24, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 16-04-2025 18:55, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > | [1] https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.yaml.cgi
| >
| > That appears to be a different set of packages.
|
|
| The packages spotted in the original list, I assume you're ta
Simon Josefsson writes:
> I think the idea behind the "proprietary system library" GPL exception
> is to make it possible to distribute GPL binaries linked to non-free
> system libraries on systems where that is pretty much unavoidable, e.g.
> system libraries on AIX, IRIX etc. The exception is
24 matches
Mail list logo
