Re: NMU procedure and /usr/bin/nmudiff defaults
Adeodato "=?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > for those who don't know, nmudiff is a small script by Steinar H. > Gunderson that, when invoked in the source tree of a NMU, will create a > diff with respect the previous version, and send it to the BTS. I've > found it quite useful myself, and probably others have as well. I always use debdiff >patch and then check that for abnormalities before using reportbug to send it in. > By default, the current version of nmudiff opens a new bug against the > package and attaches the diff to it. I recently submitted wishlist > #370056 against devscripts so nmudiff behaves like this only if --new is > passed, and by default sends the patch to the bugs the NMU fixes. I think that a NMU that fixes only one bug should always go to that bug. If it fixes multiple bugs it might be better to open a new one and only drop a notice about it in the affekted bugs. Might be little point in duplicating the patch all over the BTS. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testing security archive move
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> Errr... apt-get says: >> >> Failed to fetch >> http://security.debian.org/dists/etch/updates/Release Unable to >> find expected entry main/binary-amd64/Packages in Meta-index file >> (malformed Release file?) >> >> >> And, indeed, despite appearing in Architectures, there is no >> binary-amd64 in the release file. >> >> > And indeed, it's still that way anyone know what's going on? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369185 No reaction yet. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns wrote: > > For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't > > maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't > > even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. > > As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. Although a regular reader of debian-legal, I seldom post here. I believe Andrew may have seen me on -devel, -isp, -users, etc. Yes, I think I was reading off -devel. If Towns and Langasek have finished with the ad hominems, can we now return to consideration of the issues? Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Now I *really* wish mailing lists had moderation like /. does. -1 Troll to nearly every post AJ has made here. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By whom? A bunch of people with too much time on their hands. Is there an actual lawyer involved? I don't think so. This is a crazy stupid argument. By this argument, Debian should distribute absolutely anything, no matter what the license, unless a lawyer gets involved. Never mind actually bothering to get a valid copyright license -- there's no actual lawyer involved, so we don't have to worry! Let's distribute copies of some websites which seem interesting! After all, there's no lawyer involved! How about some old movies -- maybe "Gone with the Wind"? After all there's no lawyer involved! Please desist from making completely moronic arguments. If you would like to hire a copyright lawyer and provide his or her services to Debian, it would be much appreciated. Until then, we make do with what we have, and try to work out what licenses mean as best we can. In particular, we tend to demand licenses where we can clearly tell, without being lawyers, that they don't require bad things. It's because we're not lawyers that we err on the side of caution. If you disagree on some point of license interpretation, please argue the merits of the matter. Don't say "Oh, you're not a lawyer, so I can't hear you, la la la". This applies to everyone who likes to slag off debian-legal, by the way. Your other arguments were reasonable and sensible. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:52:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > - something it already had (admins who really wanted Sun's Java could > > > always go to java.sun.com and install it themselves or use java-package) > > > > Well, see, *this* is not true. Sure, it's possible to install Java on a > > Debian system; one can even turn a non-free binary java distribution > > into a Debian package and install that by using java-package. However, > > this is a far cry from > > * Being able to install non-free Java on your Debian system, even if the > > oldest Java binaries being distributed by the original authors are > > more recent than the ones java-package is ready for > > * Being able to just install non-free Java by running "apt-get install". > > * Being able to upgrade to a newer (fixed) version of Java by just > > running "apt-get upgrade" > > Please RTFM [1], Blackdown has been distributing java packages for Debian > through their own APT repositories and mirror network for quite some time. > For example check this: > > # Blackdown Java > deb ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/languages/java/linux/debian unstable non-free Apparently you've not been following the world very closely, blackdown haven't updated the packages in that archive for "some time", and now suggest using java-package to create your own packages. Personally, I'd much rather the Sun JVM was removed from non-free until the licence is sorted to an extent that means SPI isn't legally bound by distributing it in non-free. java-package works, and it works well. Thanks, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc 4.1 or not
Steve Langasek writes: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > I found one serious bug in 4.1.1 though (#370308) which needs to be > > fixed before 4.1 can be the default (since it produces a bogus error > > on some Perl headers which get included by many packages). Matthias > > is aware of this and is (I think) working on an update already (one > > single patch needs to be reverted). gcc-defaults can be changed after > > a new 4.1.1 package enters the archive. > > Well, he also just downgraded that bug with the rationale that gcc-4.1 isn't > the default compiler yet. ...and add the pending tag. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc 4.1 or not
Martin Michlmayr writes: > * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-04 21:01]: > > As we are below the 20 packages count if bug #366820 is correct (and > > Martin just confirmed the number), it is ok to do the switch now. > > Martin, can you please also mark these bugs as serious now (as > > they're FTBFS then)? > > Yes, we have been under 20 bugs for a while now. Most of the > outstanding bugs fall into two categories: > - bugs that have been fixed upstream and are now waiting for a new >version > - packages that have other RC bugs and cannot be uploaded > Fortunately, the former is the majority. All maintainers of these > packages are aware of the importance of these bugs and I'll continue > to pester them. ;-) > > While I've been building the archive with gcc 4.2 recently, I've > haven't done a re-run with 4.1.1 yet. Matthias uploaded the packages > a few days ago and they passed NEW today so I'll do it this week. > I don't expect many new issues from this though. Furthermore, I > assume that some of the packages that passed through NEW might not > build with gcc 4.1 but again that should not be a show stopper. > > I found one serious bug in 4.1.1 though (#370308) which needs to be > fixed before 4.1 can be the default (since it produces a bogus error > on some Perl headers which get included by many packages). Matthias > is aware of this and is (I think) working on an update already (one > single patch needs to be reverted). gcc-defaults can be changed after > a new 4.1.1 package enters the archive. 4.1.1-2 uploaded. I'll upload a new gcc-defaults with a build dependency on that version tomorrow. > In terms of architectures, there wasn't terribly much feedback from > the porters. right, we did see most feedback from the non-release architectures. > However, I have done full archive rebuilds on a number > of the architectures in the meantime and it looks good. I might have > missed a bug or two since I didn't investigate each error in detail > this time but I think most errors I ignored where generic build > problems or something related to the new X. > > The status, as far as I'm concerned, is the following: > >archstatustests > - > + alpha good full archive rebuilt > + amd64 good full archive rebuilt > ? arm unknown untested > ? hppawould benefit from 4.1 (abi); untested it requires 4.1 (or removal of 4.1); architecture specific abi changes. all packages depending on libgcc2 need to be rebuilt. once the required packages are rebuilt, libgcc4 will need to conflict with libgcc2. > + i386good full archive rebuilt > ? ia64unknown untested > + mipsgood full archive rebuilt > + mipsel see mips > + powerpc good full archive rebuilt > > - hurd-i386 didn't build until recently; fixed in 4.1.1 > ? kfreebsd-i386 they'd like to have 4.1 > + m68k4.1 fixes many compiler bugs > ? s390unknown untested > + sparc good full archive rebuilt > > -- > Martin Michlmayr > http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply > is none. The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, > > on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for > > non-free, and that is also Sun's position. > Just for clarification, a position expressed by a person that has a > special position but is not elected is to be considered an official > statement by the project? To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to "make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise" (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected position, if you feel that makes a difference. Those aren't the final word; technical statements by maintainers can be overruled by the technical committee, and pretty much anything can be overruled by a general resolution of some sort or another, but, just for clarification, yes that really is the way things work in Debian. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
#include * Andrew Donnellan [Mon, Jun 05 2006, 07:13:29AM]: > >No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the > >problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In > >the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel > >list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even > >be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. > > What is wrong with not being a DD? I'm not one, I'm not in NM, I don't > maintain any packages, I just care about free software and Debian in > particular. Phrased after a famous german comedian: Democracy means, you are allowed to have an opinion on everything. You do not have to. Especially some people should learn a simple fact: if you do not have anything new to say, just STFU. > Debian is supposed to be *open* and *transparent*. Telling off users > because their opinion doesn't matter is just stupid. What Mike said is > completely relevant, and IMHO correct. Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near future. Just stop chewing the same arguments, let the people do their work. And do not try to polarize the discussion with another "summary of facts, yeah, I could contribute to this discussion somehow so I rock". Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#370469: ITP: msntp -- a very simple and portable SNTP client for UNIX
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Matthieu Vogelweith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: msntp Version : 1.6 Upstream Author : University of Cambridge, N.M. Maclaren * URL : http://www.hpcf.cam.ac.uk/export/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : a very simple and portable SNTP client for UNIX MSNTP is intended to be a straightforward SNTP daemon/utility that is easy to build on any reasonable Unix platform (and most near-Unix ones), whether or not it has ever been ported to them before. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NMU procedure and /usr/bin/nmudiff defaults
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:11:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.05.0036 +0200]: > > I don't think there is much harm in opening a new NMU bug. > > Isn't an NMU by definition bound to an existing bug? Or at least > should be? So then I'd say that nmudiff should *never* open a new > bug. The term NMU cover any upload of package by someone who is not an uploader. The maintainers can allow any kind of NMUs, but they might still want the patch in the BTS. Of course, non-maintainer approved NMUs are restricted by the NMU policy in effect which will generally link NMUs to bugs. I personnaly made several maintainer-approved NMU that fixed bugs that were not in the BTS (because there was too many issues to report them all separatly), mainly for menu clean-up. So, if the NMU is linked to a bug, use it, else create a fresh bug. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NMU procedure and /usr/bin/nmudiff defaults
also sprach Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.05.1446 +0200]: > So, if the NMU is linked to a bug, use it, else create a fresh bug. exactly. Ideally, write a bug before you start preparing the NMU, and then try to fix it before the bug confirmation gets in. :) -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system /.ing an issue is like asking an infinite number of monkeys for advice -- in #debian-devel signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers > of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive > are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of > authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks > about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Of course, but the "authority of doing something" and "Debian position" are different concepts. One is techical decision and the other a policy decision. The ftpmaster implement the policy but do not decide it. > Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to "make statements of support > for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked > or otherwise" (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected > position, if you feel that makes a difference. Could you be more specific about the "above" ? i.e. Where did you make a (5.1.2) statement ? In that case, I would suggest Constitution 5.3. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Non-DD's in debian-legal
Disclaimer: I am not a DD, nor in the n-m queue. I'm also
re-crossposting to debian-devel, because I don't think this discussion
could usefully be had on debian-legal -- and it's not a licensing issue
anyway.
Anthony Towns writes:
> I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous.
> It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of
> some participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian
> project as a whole,
This statement could, of course, be generalized to refer to any mailing
list and any group of participants, and it would still be just as true.
If this is a particular problem for d-l it's because people often ask
d-l for a definitive judgement on a license, and the list is simply not
set up to deliver on that request. There have been a few attempts
(summaries, for example), but they never worked well.
> however, and particularly when that applies to
> individuals who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a
> serious disservice to people who are.
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a
disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from
experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This
is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you
evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a
solution.
For whatever reason, this issue seems to be a particular problem for
d-l. Every so often someone claims that the results of discussions on
d-l aren't valid because d-l is populated by a bunch of non-DD's, or
tries to discount someone's argument because that person isn't a DD.
Mostly I write that off as sour grapes over being on the losing side of
an argument. But when it comes from a duly elected official in the
Debian organization, I have to take a step back and wonder what the
problem is.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally
having strong opinions on licensing ("*This* license is _free_, @#$^!")
are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the
nitpicking arguments about language, jurisdiction, and law, etc., that
are needed to make a decision on a particular license or work. That
leaves a vacuum on d-l, where such discussions are supposed to take
place.
So that leaves those of us who may not be DD's but (by whatever
perversion of character) are actually interested in discussing licenses,
and motivated to ensure that the quality of the licensing of Debian
software remains as high as that of the software itself. We, naturally
enough, have helped to fill that vacuum. Unfortunately, licensing
issues tend toward flame wars because, as I mentioned before, people
tend to have strong opinions without wanting to take the time to ground
those opinions in the facts. These flame-fests lead some people to try
to find reasons to discount their opponents, and on d-l that reason is
often simply that some of the participants are not DD's.
So I don't think this problem is going away, nor do I think it's a
serious one. After all, if DD's really think licensing issues should be
discussed behind closed doors, they're free to pass a GR taking
debian-legal private. But if you have a different opinion on the issue,
I'd like to hear it.
(Note that I am not at all talking about the whole Sun java bit. I
personally find it hard to get worked up about non-free software going
into non-free. Perhaps legal counsel should have been sought, but
that's not my call.)
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions > on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a > disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from > experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This > is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you > evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a > solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: "What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license." Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NMU procedure and /usr/bin/nmudiff defaults
* martin f krafft [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:58:47 +0200]: > exactly. Ideally, write a bug before you start preparing the NMU, > and then try to fix it before the bug confirmation gets in. :) The real kick is to put dak and the BTS to compete. You `nmudiff`, and right afterwards you `dput`. Then you make a bet about which mail will arrive first, if the bug acknowledgement, or katie's ACCEPTED (the one from the queue daemon should not be taken into account). -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. -- Henry Kissinger
Bug#370485: ITP: libdata-random-perl -- Perl module to generate random data
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: gregor herrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libdata-random-perl Version : 0.05 Upstream Author : Adekunle Olonoh, [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~adeo/Data-Random-0.05/Random.pm * License : Same as Perl (GPL or Artistic) Programming Lang: Perl Description : Perl module to generate random data A module used to generate random data. Useful mostly for test programs. Note: This module was requested on IRC (#debian-devel at OFTC) today: 11:11 doesnt anyone want to package http://search.cpan.org/~dcantrell/Net-Random-1.2/lib/Net/Random.pm? 11:11 and why is selenium not packaged? is the license wrong? 11:12 why would one want random numbers from weird online sources? 11:13 did i past the wrong link? 11:13 yes 11:13 i meant http://search.cpan.org/~adeo/Data-Random-0.05/Random.pm -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'experimental'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.200605231750 Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: Various Artists: Marchshula Ui Neill NP: Various Artists: Marchshula Ui Neill signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single > statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check > that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check > official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with > gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring > then he (addresee) will ask for help. The context is a representative of Sun emailing debian-legal, and someone appearing to speak on behalf of Debian emailing him back. The DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > > As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply > > is none. > > The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for > Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just > relevant, it's the entire question. The actual issues raised were about obligation and liabilities incurred by Debian much more than whether we have permission to include it. (The purpose of the license is to trade the permission with obligation and liabilities). I don't see Sun having a position on the amount of obligation and liability Debian should accept and how such position would be relevant to Debian policy. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian/ search
hi I just a thought search debian/ include package. I'd try the idea out, use gonzui. http://debian-src.devel.jp It's beta level service. This system is updated and stopped occasionally without any prior notice. -- Yasuo Eto < yasuo at etou.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 12:54 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and > again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. Apparently some people haven't received it, if they need to dismiss the argument based on the fact it has been expressed by non-developers. > We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near > future. What makes you believe this "will be solved in the near future"? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
spam on debian-* lists
Question: Is SpamAssassin or greylisting used on lists.debian.org? Thanks, Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spam on debian-* lists
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > Question: Is SpamAssassin or greylisting used on lists.debian.org? Your e-mail should probably be directed to the listmasters. The answer is: Yes, SA and other techniques are used; a _lot_ of spam is blocked (many days, the volume of spam far exceeds the volume of ham). Greylisting is, TTBOMK, not used for various reasons. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spam on debian-* lists
* Tyler MacDonald [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:17:38 -0700]: > Question: Is SpamAssassin or greylisting used on lists.debian.org? SpamAssassin is used, yes (you could know by the headers, btw). However, check the amount of mails from lists.debian.org that my local crm114 detected as spam: Jun 01: 6 Jun 02: 2 Jun 03: 8 Jun 04: 2 Jun 05: 24 (and day not over yet, so still counting) So, for some reason, SA in murphy.d.o is letting much more spam through today. Cc'ing listmasters just in case. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Old men are fond of giving good advice to console themselves for their inability to set a bad example. -- La Rochefoucauld, "Maxims" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian/ search
On Monday 05 June 2006 18:18, Eto Yasuo wrote: > hi > > I just a thought search debian/ include package. > I'd try the idea out, use gonzui. > > http://debian-src.devel.jp Nice idea. What exactly is included in the search? All source packages? All binary & source packages? Debian mailing list archives and web site, too? I think a very brief deescription on the title page would be very nice - hunting in the "about" pages seems very non-debian specific. (Oh, and: the search should also support whitespace source code!) cheers -- vbi -- featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp pgpgdIKPiXpmt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#370546: ITP: kio-sysinfo -- kio slave displaying various system informations
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Adrian Neumaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: kio-sysinfo Version : 10.1 Upstream Author : Lukas Tinkl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://ftp.opensuse.org/pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/suse/src/ * License : GPL, LGPL Programming Lang: C++ Description : kio slave displaying various system informations A kio slave which displays informations about shared folders, cpu, graphics hardware, running distributon, storage media and memory usage. To get it type sysinfo:/ in your addressbar in konqueror. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (900, 'unstable'), (600, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.18 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) (ignored: LC_ALL set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Renaming a package
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:42:30PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > Daniel Kobras wrote: > > > Method B > > > > Package: oldpkg > > Depends: newpkg > > Files: > > /usr/share/doc/oldpkg -> /usr/share/doc/newpkg > > (and nothing else) > > Does not this hit another bug in dpkg ? > > It seems that empty old directories cannot be replaced by a > symlink without special pre/postinst script to help. My package > catched this bug and I had to workaround it (see #362487). You are correct, though it is sometime considered a feature. In this case, this means that oldpkg preinst must remove /usr/share/doc/oldpkg. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]:
> My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally
> having strong opinions on licensing ("*This* license is _free_, @#$^!")
> are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the
> nitpicking arguments about language, jurisdiction, and law, etc., that
> are needed to make a decision on a particular license or work. That
> leaves a vacuum on d-l, where such discussions are supposed to take
> place.
> So that leaves those of us who may not be DD's but (by whatever
> perversion of character) are actually interested in discussing licenses,
> and motivated to ensure that the quality of the licensing of Debian
> software remains as high as that of the software itself. We, naturally
> enough, have helped to fill that vacuum.
So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers
stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The
packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group
of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being
in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help.
The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high
quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer
the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go
to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has
to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian.
And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages,
those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a
repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for
Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested
parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they
would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are
in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org.
As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org
to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above.
P.S.: Please CC me if you drop -devel.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Te has enfadado conmigo / porque te dejo / Es injusto
No quieres volver a verme / porque no quiero / que estemos juntos
Estás siendo egoísta / no has penseado que me quedo / solo yo también
-- Astrud, Caridad
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: jabref destiny
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 05:33:14PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > The problem from my point of view is that it builds in my normal > > environment (with the Sun Java jre/jdk installed) but not in a > > pbuilder chroot (because the Sun Java packages require a "Yes, I > > agree with this licence" confirmation which obviously doesn't work in a > > chroot) - I don't know what the buildds would do in that case. > but jabref is architecture "all", why buildd should see it at all? :-) Something like "FTBFS" rings in my ears :-) > > Furthermore the future of Sun Java in Debian is a little unclear - to > > put it mildly. > well... since finally it made its way into non-free, I think (hope) that > it will stay there for quite a while ;-) We'll see. > > And I've tried to compile jabref with free java compilers but without > > success so far. > It might be worth seeking for help of "Debian Java Packaging Project" > members: http://pkg-java.alioth.debian.org/, if you really want to get > involved that much ;-) To be honest I don't really want to go into java stuff in Debian ATM. > > So I'm a bit unsure what should be done about jabref. > > >...< > indeed, it might be worth asking for an advice from -dev mailing list True. Cc'ing d-d (for your reference: the previous mails can be found at #205392). > > > P.S. Gregor, Unfortunately could not inspect jabref package thoroughly > > > since > > > > > > http://www.toastfreeware.priv.at/debian/unstable/jabref_2.0.1+2.1b-2_i386.changes > > > lacking read permissions for us ;-) > > That's a feature (bug?) of mini-dinstall. > > You still can grab all other files from > > http://www.toastfreeware.priv.at/debian/unstable/ though. > Well... though I doubt that anyone would run after you but you are > violating GPL license now -- binary is available without the full source... > ;-) and it forbids me to try pbuilder on it... TTBOMK a source package consists of .dsc, .orig.tar.gz and .diff.gz. All these files are available. You can download them manually, via apt-get source or via dget *.dsc Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: Johnny Cash: Would You Lay With Me (In A Fi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: happens because of sawfish
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 368546 sawfish Bug#368546: general: remarkable slow-down of whole system after 4-6 hours Bug reassigned from package `general' to `sawfish'. > severity 368546 serious Bug#368546: general: remarkable slow-down of whole system after 4-6 hours Severity set to `serious' from `normal' > -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AT&T Korn Shell
On 2/18/06, Josh Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/13/05, Andrew Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 14:44 +0100, Andrew Porter wrote: > > AT&T have released the source to ksh93 under the CPL (Common Public > > Licence) > > > > Are there any plans to create a debian package ? > > Bah - just found a package in unstable for it already :) > > /me tips hat to Oliver Kiddle Does the Debian ksh93 package include libast and libshell? BTW: ksh93r+ reached alpha status and is scheduled to be released this month, see http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-May/000368.html -- Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AT&T Korn Shell
On 2/28/06, Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh Hurst wrote: > On 2/20/06, Andrew Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 14:19 +0100, Josh Hurst wrote: >>> Does the Debian ksh93 package include libast and libshell? >> >> No - [snip] > Seems these libraries are statically linked. It may be worth to think > about providing shared library versions since there are many > applications which can use libshell and libast. For example AT&T > claims a 30%+ performance improvement for perl applications if sfio > (provided by libast) is used instead of stdio. There is already a libast in Debian: benjo (sid)[4]:~% apt-file search libast.so libast2: usr/lib/libast.so.2 libast2: usr/lib/libast.so.2.0.0 libast2-dev: usr/lib/libast.so benjo (sid)[8]:~% apt-cache show libast2 [snip] Description: the Library of Assorted Spiffy Things LibAST is the Library of Assorted Spiffy Things. It contains many spiffy things, and it is a library. Thus, the ever-so-creative name. LibAST has been previously known as libmej, the Eterm helper library which nobody really understood and certainly never used. ... Is this the same libast that you mean? If not, then providing the ksh libast in Debian would require one of the two libraries to change its name (Policy, Section 10.1 - ugh, this will create a mess when applied to libraries). This may be why the ksh maintainer(s) decided to link it statically, avoiding the problem. ksh93 links libast statically because it is easier. If you look at Suse or the ksh93-integration project in OpenSolaris (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ksh93-integration) you'll see that they link the library dynamically (actually ALL libs are linked dynamically, /bin/ksh is just a 3k wrapper binary for libshell which itself depends on libast, libcmd and libdll). I guess the libAST you mentioned above was introduced after 1992 - libast from AT&T exists since 1992 and therefore has likely prior claim. -- Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian/ search
> > I just a thought search debian/ include package. > > I'd try the idea out, use gonzui. > > > > http://debian-src.devel.jp > > Nice idea. > > What exactly is included in the search? All source packages? All binary & > source packages? What's included in debian/ directory of source package. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp} Debian Project -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#370592: RFH: tikiwiki -- groupware and content management system
Package: wnpp Severity: normal Dear developers, I am looking for co-maintainers for the tikiwiki package. This is a rather complex web application written in PHP, and I feel that I don't have enough time to maintain it on my own. The first packaged version (1.9.2) is currently in experimental. It is basically working but has a few issues that need to be ironed out. In addition, it needs to be upgraded to version 1.9.3.2, which fixes security bugs. The packaging work is somewhat tricky for the following reasons: *In the Debian package, I have attempted to split out those modules in the upstream source tree that are already in Debian. *It was necessary to deviate from upstream's directory layout to conform to Debian policy. *The package uses dbconfig-common to simplify database creation and management. I think it should be possible to work along these lines to turn this into a working, high-quality package. >From the package description: Tiki CMS/Groupware, also known as TikiWiki, can be used to create all sorts of web applications, web sites or portals. It offers a very large number of features and is highly configurable and modular. All features are administered through a web-based interface. Thanks, Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy > statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then > be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In > that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a > position to speak on behalf of Debian. That's entirely reasonable. Perhaps I misinterpreted aj's message somewhat. It seemed to me to be placing rather more emphasis on Walter not being a DD. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers > stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The > packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group > of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being > in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help. Absolutely. That's the Debian Way(tm). > The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high > quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer > the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go > to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has > to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. That's where the analogy breaks down, though. Analyzing software licensing situations doesn't require upload rights or a key on the developer key-ring. In fact, it doesn't require any developer privileges at all -- unless you count posting on debian mailing lists and occasionally filing bugs as developer privilege. > And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, > those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a > repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for > Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested > parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they > would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are > in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. > > As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org > to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
O: cutter
retitle 316195 O: cutter -- disconnect routed IP connections severity 232058 grave thanks I'm not using this package, and it reportedly does not work with 2.6 kernels. It's been in RFA state for almost a year, with no takers. (One NM contacted me, but never prepared a fixed package for sponsorship.) As it looks like 2.4 kernels will not ship with etch, I'm increasing the severity of the outstanding bug and orphaning the package. If noone adopts the package I will request removal in a few weeks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New LTSP uploaded!
Hello Folks, I did the upload of our new LTSP version. Of course, I'm very happy with it! It does a great job and will have a lot of new bugs since we redid a lot of code. Personally, I would like to thank firstly to Vagrant (vagrantc) who spent a lot of time working with me at Debcamp and to Gustavo (stratus) who helped me last days to finish the testing of code for upload. People, test it! report the bugs and, if possible, help us! -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New LTSP uploaded!
Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I did the upload of our new LTSP version. Of course, I'm very happy > with it! It does a great job and will have a lot of new bugs since we > redid a lot of code. > > Personally, I would like to thank firstly to Vagrant (vagrantc) who > spent a lot of time working with me at Debcamp and to Gustavo > (stratus) who helped me last days to finish the testing of code for > upload. > > People, test it! report the bugs and, if possible, help us! > I earlier expressed a possible interest in adopting ltsp-utils. I will hopefully be able to start work on an update to that package in the coming weeks. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l > to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New LTSP uploaded!
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Hello Folks, >> >> I did the upload of our new LTSP version. Of course, I'm very happy >> with it! It does a great job and will have a lot of new bugs since we >> redid a lot of code. >> >> Personally, I would like to thank firstly to Vagrant (vagrantc) who >> spent a lot of time working with me at Debcamp and to Gustavo >> (stratus) who helped me last days to finish the testing of code for >> upload. >> >> People, test it! report the bugs and, if possible, help us! >> > > I earlier expressed a possible interest in adopting ltsp-utils. I will > hopefully be able to start work on an update to that package in the > coming weeks. On ltsp-utils? Would be better if you could join our effort to make LTSP good enough to all vendors. We're trying to make flexible enough that will be trivial to share code between Debian, Ubuntu and any other vendor that start to use our code. Also, there's some tools from ltsp-utils that might be good to have in but then would be good if you join pkg-ltsp project and coordenate with the rest of people what to get in. See you there ;-) -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New LTSP uploaded!
Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On ltsp-utils? Would be better if you could join our effort to make > LTSP good enough to all vendors. We're trying to make flexible enough > that will be trivial to share code between Debian, Ubuntu and any > other vendor that start to use our code. > > Also, there's some tools from ltsp-utils that might be good to have in > but then would be good if you join pkg-ltsp project and coordenate > with the rest of people what to get in. > > See you there ;-) > OK. If that is the case, please feel free to take the ltsp-utils package. I only expressed an interest in it since it was orphaned and I am using LTSP at my church. I am rather busy with some of the other packaging efforts I have joined. So please, feel free. If you would still like my help, I will let you know when I am ready to join in a few weeks. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l >> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? > > Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, > don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a > say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of > the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. > > - David Nusinow > > One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed to certain positions don't get to do these things. Travis Crump[not a debian developer] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: New LTSP uploaded!
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Also, there's some tools from ltsp-utils that might be good to have in >> but then would be good if you join pkg-ltsp project and coordenate >> with the rest of people what to get in. >> >> See you there ;-) >> > OK. If that is the case, please feel free to take the ltsp-utils > package. I only expressed an interest in it since it was orphaned and I > am using LTSP at my church. I am rather busy with some of the other > packaging efforts I have joined. So please, feel free. If you would > still like my help, I will let you know when I am ready to join in a few > weeks. Of course we're interested in your help. If you have a partial package of it, provide it somewhere so anyone can check it and try to improve it while you're busy. About your church, you should try the new LTSP version NOW ;-) GO! hehe -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l > > to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? > > Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and > Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. > They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any > claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal > contributors as well. Indeed, this applies to everyone. Only the DPL (and delegates acting in a specific area of delegated responsibility) have the authority to speak "ex cathedra" for the project, and even they should be very cautious when doing as they are still subject to being overruled via a GR. Everyone should make ubundantly clear when they are interfacing with individuals outside of Debian mailing lists that their opinions are not necessarily the opinions of the Debian project; that they are merely representing their own concerns. This isn't something that we can effectively enforce, but not doing so can harm both the reputation of the Debian project, and the people who are misrepresenting it; if you care about our community, it behooves you to do this. As far as talking on list, I really don't think it matters whether or not you are a developer;[1] the critical thing is what you have to say and to a lesser extent the way in which you say it.[2] Don Armstrong 1: Anyone who actually reads these lists should be capable of checking db.debian.org or qa.debian.org if this sort of thing actually matters to them. 2: I'd like to think -legal contributors should always be thinking about their messages in terms of the desired end state: software in main under non-controversially DFSG free licenses. Contribute with that end goal in mind. [I suppose the same could be said for -devel contributor's desired end state: a technically excellent distribution.] -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: > David Nusinow wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >> I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l > >> to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? > > > > Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, > > don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a > > say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of > > the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. > > > > - David Nusinow > > > > > > One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed > to certain positions don't get to do these things. Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been maintaining for a few years, or a programming language for which they maintain an extraordinary amount of packages and have been helping out in shaping a policy for, or some appointed position (as in this case) really isn't all that important. If somebody not involved with the m68k port comes and tells me that some decision I made for m68k is all wrong and that I should've done this or that instead, I'll have a good laugh. And go on with doing whatever I was doing. Which, I think, is what the ftp-masters should do to this thread. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Starting with "What is key for Debian" makes it sound like a policy > statement on behalf of Debian, and "Just fix the license" could then be > interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. If Sun believe things from random people that easily, then I've an Eiffel Tower to sell them at a discount price... > In that > context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a > position to speak on behalf of Debian. I think Walter Landry already did that with a ucsd.edu sig block. At least the reply was better than the "For those playing along at home" trolls posted recently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
