Bug#443406: Acknowledgement (Use of our external site embedded into a Debian file)

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian. This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has been received. It is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course. Your message

Re: Use of our external site embedded into a Debian file

Package: liquidlnf Priority: Normal Version: 2.9.1-2 Please stop using sitetruth.com in your debian/watch -- I think it would be preferable to just disable the watch file until uscan gets https support, if it doesn't already have it (I think 2.10.7 does though). John, this mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Use of our external site embedded into a Debian file

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 15:41 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > We have a system that rates web pages, and as a service for > > webmasters, we have a little utility, "viewer.cgi", which is used to > > show users how our crawler saw a page. Somebody stuck this into a > > Debian watchfile because it can

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

Quoting Lars Wirzenius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test > added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on > debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to > react and upload new packages, do a mass bug fil

Some questions about Debian

Hi, Following my blog post about communications between distros[1], I contacted openSUSE and Fedora developers and had a lot of interesting answers. I'd like to get answers to the same questions from Debian developers. [1] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=250 I could probably write the answ

Work-needing packages report for Sep 21, 2007

The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 302 (new: 2) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 78 (new: 0) Total number of packages requeste

Re: Bug#443392: ITP: gitpkg -- helper scripts for maintaining packages with git

On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:49:26AM +0930, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Package name: gitpkg > Version : 0.1 > Upstream Author : Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://people.debian.org/~ron/

Re: Use of our external site embedded into a Debian file

[cc-ing John Nagle as context suggests he's not on this list. John, if you are subscribed, please say so and we'll stop cc-ing you.] John, thanks very much for researching the problem before reporting it. I understand it can be alarming to see that an automated system is accessing your system in w

Use of our external site embedded into a Debian file

REF: http://db.debian.net/lurker/message/20070707.195201.8e2c00a8.en.html Author: Varun Hiremath Date: 2007-07-07 12:52 -700 To: 423669 CC: control, Torsten Werner New-Topics: Processed: uscan: https support Subject: Bug#423669: uscan: https support We noticed a wierd usage of our SiteTruth.com s

Re: Proposal regarding future packaging

On Thu September 20 2007 09:25:23 pm Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote: > 19-09-2007, Bruce Sass: > > I'm hoping the dpkg "triggers" functionality Ian Jackson has been > > working on will help solve that wart though. > > How exactly? Exactly? I don't know. I haven't followed what is happening close enoug

Re: Proposal regarding future packaging

19-09-2007, Bruce Sass: [] >> > I like this too. Finding what a package has just installed is one >> > of the biggest holes in Debian right now, IMO. I have to use dpkg >> > -L to figure this out, and that's just too crude to be a real >> > solution. >> >> Too crude? That's a simple command, easil

Wiki page (was Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control)

> > I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test > added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on > debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to > react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing. Basically agreed. I created http://w

Wiki page (was Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control)

I'd start with amending the Developers' Reference, then having a test added to lintian and linda, and after that announcing it on debian-devel-announce. Then next year, after everyone's had time to react and upload new packages, do a mass bug filing. Basically agreed. I created http://wiki.debia

Bug#443392: ITP: gitpkg -- helper scripts for maintaining packages with git

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: gitpkg Version : 0.1 Upstream Author : Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://people.debian.org/~ron/gitpkg/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: bash Description : helper scrip

Re: Proposal regarding future packaging

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Goerzen wrote: [...] > Too crude? That's a simple command, easily found in a relevant manpage. In > true Unix fashion, its output can be easily piped to other commands. What's > crude about it? Well, it doesn't actually tell me what I need t

Bug#443370: ITP: asmutils -- coreutils replacement written in i386 assembler

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Fleckl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: asmutils Version : 0.18 Upstream Author : Various Authors * URL : http://asm.sourceforge.net/asmutils.html * License : GPL

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

Luca Capello wrote: > This is strange: the Homepage field is shown for some packages [1] and > not for others [2], e.g. reported below: > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show ikiwiki | grep "^Homepage" > Homepage: http://ikiwiki.info/ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show deb-gview | grep

Bug#443350: ITP: josm -- Java Open Street Map editor

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Package name: josm Version: 1.5 Upstream Author: Immanuel Scholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> & others URL: http://josm.eigenheimstrasse.de/ License: GPL Description: Java Open Street Map editor

Become employed today in a respectable international company and reach the financial success. (no investment reqired)

Big international commercial organization is seeking of talented, honest, reliable representatives in different regions. Because of developing of our business the organization is proposing to you to become its part. You can work part time or full time. Requirements: Internet Connection Basic

Novedades de escorts en Argentina

Hola en los siguientes links tenes un listado de las mejores escorts argentinas Escorts Independientes: http://www.directoriodeescort.com.ar/01reco-inde.html Escorts Recomendadas: http://www.directoriodeescort.com.ar/02reco-dep1.html Escorts Vip: http://www.lasmejoresescorts.com/1/index50.html Es

Re: Packages with RFCs deleted

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:46:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:08:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : > > For what it's worth, we don't do that. References I'm aware of: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00092.html > > http://lists.debian.org/

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

Hello! On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:31:31 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:05:04 +0200 Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> As a consequence, it seems logical to promote the use of that field >> and recommend abandoning "Homepage" paragraphs in packages' >> description.

Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file

Please don't email copies of list messages unless explicitly requested. http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote: > > IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including > > any email address

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:22:14AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Moreover I said that we might be able to parse debian/copyright for > potential homepage strings. Yep, I got that, sorry for not replying on it. But this does not seem really feasible to me: in debian/copyright you almost always hav

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Ah, ok, so probably the initial proposal was to file bugs against packages using the pseudo Homepage field in the description, asking the maintainers to convert it in the new one. No I think you did understand the initial proposal right, but I was

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:49:17AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Bugging those packages that contain an url in the description first? > Perhaps grepping debian/copyright for potential homepage strings? Ah, ok, so probably the initial proposal was to file bugs against packages using the pseudo Home

Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file

On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote: >> Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to >> write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it >> is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author >> field of debian/copyright file. > IANADD, bu

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: To me it doesn't seem easy to implement. The naive solution of bugging all package without a Homepage field will not work because not all package probably have an Homepage; I agree that the false negatives would be only a few, but that's not a valid

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:57:44AM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > > Of course, a mass bug-filing could also later happen but that would > > probably be a *huge* bug filing which should be avoided now. Entering > > a transition period where all communication media towards develpers > > are used to s

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

Hi On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:05:04 +0200 Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a consequence, it seems logical to promote the use of that field > and recommend abandoning "Homepage" paragraphs in packages' > description. > > As, in the Smith review project conducted on debian-l10n-engli

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

to, 2007-09-20 kello 07:05 +0200, Christian Perrier kirjoitti: > Of course, a mass bug-filing could also later happen but that would > probably be a *huge* bug filing which should be avoided now. Entering > a transition period where all communication media towards develpers > are used to suggest sw

Re: [RFC] Promoting the use of "Homepage:" field in debian/control

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > A recent discussion back in August, in -devel, showed that the current > common trick of using a "Homepage:" pseudo-field in binary packages' > descriptions is not really optimal. Indeed. It's formally specified to be used in the