Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2009-03-20, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source
> > files anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are
> > doing it is a trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes
> > any time at all really
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:02:48PM -0700, Daniel Moerner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
> > anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
> > trivial task. I do
On Fri, Mar 20 2009, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:58:14AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
>> holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
>>
>> Whatever justification exists for this
On 2009-03-20, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
> anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
> trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes any time at all
> really. Unless you are not actually l
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> To me, it seems like since one has to go through all of the source files
> anyway, creating a list of copyright holders while you are doing it is a
> trivial task. I don't see why making this list takes any time at all
> really. Unless you
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:58:14AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyright
> holders to be up-to-date each time the package goes through NEW.
>
> Whatever justification exists for this requirement, I???m starting to find
> it unaccep
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
> > The point is that, since we can predict the need for this
> > information, we have the choice of assuming the information is
> > there when we distribute and never looking for it until the need
> > arises in the face of such a threat, or looking f
Ben Finney writes:
> The point is that, since we can predict the need for this information,
> we have the choice of assuming the information is there when we
> distribute and never looking for it until the need arises in the face of
> such a threat, or looking for it in advance of distribution an
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:33:05PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > If the upstream license doesn't require that we preserve the
> > copyright statement (or if upstream doesn't have them), I'm not sure
> > we need to be requiring that they be collected into
> > debian/copyright
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > I am working from the assumption that we need, at least in
> > principle, to maintain an accurate knowledge of the copyright
> > status of the works we distribute in Debian. I base that
> > assumption on the necessity of that information when evaluat
Le Friday 20 March 2009 02:06:37 Ben Finney, vous avez écrit :
> > Is this the right way to spend developer time? as far as I see it,
> > developer time is our most valuable resource, and should not be
> > treated as such.
>
> Certainly, the time of people is valuable. I would like to see a
> forma
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joe Nahmias
* Package name: configure-trackpoint
Version : 0.7
Upstream Author : Cheuksan Edward Wang
* URL : http://tpctl.sourceforge.net/configure-trackpoint.html
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description
To: debian-devel
Hello,
Can I please get an opinion on bug #520463?
Am I doing something wrong, or is there a bug somewhere here?
It doesn't make a lot of sense...
Thanks
--
Brian May
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:37:00PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Can you point to a proposal (on another page) for an alternate format
> > that you feel passes these tests?
> A point during the early stage of that wiki page, something similar to
> what I currently use for one of my own packages
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> If the upstream license doesn't require that we preserve the copyright
>> statement (or if upstream doesn't have them), I'm not sure we need to
>> be requiring that they be collected into debian/copyright.
> I am working from the assumption that we n
Russ Allbery writes:
> If the upstream license doesn't require that we preserve the
> copyright statement (or if upstream doesn't have them), I'm not sure
> we need to be requiring that they be collected into
> debian/copyright.
I am working from the assumption that we need, at least in principl
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fran Lupion
* Package name: tucan
Version : 0.3.6
Upstream Author : Fran Lupion
* URL : http://cusl3-tucan.forja.rediris.es/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Tucan is a download and upload
Ben Finney writes:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>> Note: I’m not contesting the need for the license check. This one is
>> useful, and strictly checking the accuracy of licenses in
>> debian/copyright is clearly needed. But I don’t think there’s any use
>> having an up-to-date list of copyright ho
Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, I wonder if Marco isn't arguing on the basis of old information;
> lookups for LDAP at boot time should not result in long timeouts, and it's a
> bug in nss_ldap/libldap if they do - a bug which I thought had been
> addressed by now.
>
It still results in a numb
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Note: I’m not contesting the need for the license check. This one is
> useful, and strictly checking the accuracy of licenses in
> debian/copyright is clearly needed. But I don’t think there’s any
> use having an up-to-date list of copyright holders in there.
You don't
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:30:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> [My apologies in advance for the cross-posting.]
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:36AM +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > >>
> > > So, I've been trying to build the Debian package with the latest from
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2009-03-19, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
> >
> > I find it very surprising that someone can be a Debian developer and
> > consider copyright of works to be ???a very minor issue??? in Debian.
> > Perhaps I've
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 11:09 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>
>> How exactly? The problem is that these groups are referenced in the udev
>> configuration but do not exist, and this causes problmes at boot time
>> with systems using LDAP.
>>
>
> You mean, systems u
On Mar 19, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, they should not. The system groups referenced by udev should instead
> always be present in /etc/group.
Correct.
> However, I wonder if Marco isn't arguing on the basis of old information;
Me too, the maintainers of the relevant packages are encouraged to
Ben Finney writes:
> The page mentions, in several places now, the desire to set up a
> discussion forum to continue the discussion away from the page; once
> that's set up I'll be happy to pitch in and clear the weeds from
> that page.
I have cleared away the discussions anyway (to a separate p
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: 398 (new: 11)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 120 (new: 12)
Total number of packages reque
On Mar 19, Roger Leigh wrote:
> With respect to #494001, I would like to determine the minimum
> version of the linux kernel we will
For the new udev package[1] I am trying *very* hard to keep it working
even with 2.6.18 kernels long enough to be able to finish the upgrade,
but I can tell you tha
Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 23:42 +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> I think when uploading kde4.2 to unstable, at least 60 developer hours
> was put into working on the copyright files, even with loads of help
> from various scripts.
The real problem here is that FTP masters require the list of copyrig
On 2009-03-19, Ben Finney wrote:
>> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
>
> I find it very surprising that someone can be a Debian developer and
> consider copyright of works to be ???a very minor issue??? in Debian.
> Perhaps I've misinterpreted this statement. Wha
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:05:45 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:33:41 +1100
> > Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > I find the structure [in the proposed copyright file format] makes
> > > it far easier to write and check than the free-form chaos of many
> >
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:33:41 +1100
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > I find the structure [in the proposed copyright file format] makes
> > it far easier to write and check than the free-form chaos of many
> > existing files. What would you have removed from the format to
> > re
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:33:41 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
> > After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
> > sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> For those who weren't
Hi folks,
With respect to #494001, I would like to determine the minimum
version of the linux kernel we will
a) support and
b) be physically capable of running
for Squeeze.
It has been asserted that squeeze will not work with kernels
< 2.6.26 by jcristau on IRC, but I haven't yet found any
Sune Vuorela writes:
> After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
> sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
For those who weren't present when you were having that IRC
discussion, can you point us to
(We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.)
Dominik Smatana writes:
> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
> beginning:
>
> // Please see included LICENSE.TXT
>
> licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of cour
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:35:59 +0100
Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows?
> > (Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0
> > has to deal with in
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:51:25AM +0100, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.
>
> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
> beginning:
>
> // Please see included LICENSE.
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:37:59AM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
> > > But if the collective opinion of the project is that the issue does not
> > > exist then I will happily close bugs like #516149 and tell users to live
> > > with it. Pleas
Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 18:23 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Ignorance is not a point of view.
What if you explained *precisely* what is the problem you are seeing
with these groups, and the implications? If you keep referring vaguely
to discussions happening in other distributions instead, I fai
Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 11:12 -0700, Ludovico Cavedon a écrit :
> are application using gconf *required* to have provide a schema?
> In other words, does it make sense to file a bug against applications
> which fail to do so?
Theoretically, any application should work without its schemas
installed
Hi all,
are application using gconf *required* to have provide a schema?
In other words, does it make sense to file a bug against applications
which fail to do so?
IMHO it makes sense, so you can clean no longer useful keys from the
gconf db, but I could not find a precise policy about that.
Than
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:37:59AM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > But if the collective opinion of the project is that the issue does not
> > exist then I will happily close bugs like #516149 and tell users to live
> > with it. Please advise.
> They should add this group to their ldap databa
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Henning Glawe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> This is the complete list of groups which I'd rather stop using:
>> rdma (infiniband devices)
>
> is there any alternative way to restrict access to infiniband
> without thi
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 19, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
>> It is the same probleme with floppy, tty and disk group.
> No, it's not.
>
>> They should add this group to their ldap database. At least it should
> This would not change anything.
>
>> be documented
On Mar 19, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Moreover I respectfully disagree with you.? Permission on device file
Ignorance is not a point of view.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is the complete list of groups which I'd rather stop using:
> rdma (infiniband devices)
is there any alternative way to restrict access to infiniband
without this?
--
c u
henning
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel
Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 15:30 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > It looks to me that such setups are broken. Either they use /etc/group,
> > either they put these groups in their LDAP, but we can???t suddently start
> > supporting systems where important system groups are missing.
> They are not "im
On Mar 19, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > How exactly? The problem is that these groups are referenced in the udev
> > configuration but do not exist, and this causes problmes at boot time
> > with systems using LDAP.
> You mean, systems using only LDAP and not the local /etc/group?
No.
> It looks
Le jeudi 19 mars 2009 à 11:09 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> How exactly? The problem is that these groups are referenced in the udev
> configuration but do not exist, and this causes problmes at boot time
> with systems using LDAP.
You mean, systems using only LDAP and not the local /etc/group?
Hello
Sorry for the silence, I had a few thing to wrap up before going on
with this proposal.
Dominique Dumont writes:
> ok. Here's the plan:
>
> - Identify a "candidate" package to add (as a patch) an upgrade
> feature based on Config::Model.
I'm going to use approx as the candidate packag
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Koch
* Package name: simhash
Version : only GIT, no releases
Upstream Author : Bart Massey
* URL : http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/forge/simhash.html
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C
Description : generate simil
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Users must not be in specific groups to access hardware, this is broken and
> insecure.
I was just about to reanimate my previous thread on better group handling for
squeeze, I think I'll put together a wiki page trying to summarize t
On Mar 19, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> It is the same probleme with floppy, tty and disk group.
No, it's not.
> They should add this group to their ldap database. At least it should
This would not change anything.
> be documented that debian system need this group. BTW redhat has also
> rdma, fu
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 19, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> Once was thrown the idea to prefix all system groups with ???Debian-???.
> One of the most stupid ideas which have ever been inflicted on the
> project.
>
>> This solves this specific problem in a much
On Mar 19, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Once was thrown the idea to prefix all system groups with ???Debian-???.
One of the most stupid ideas which have ever been inflicted on the
project.
> This solves this specific problem in a much better way.
How exactly? The problem is that these groups are re
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows?
> (Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0
> has to deal with incorporating patches and changes from the BTS, so
> +t1.diff.gz is n
Hello,
thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.
One more "license-newbie" question:
In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
beginning:
// Please see included LICENSE.TXT
licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of course...
Is such reference to external file suf
Le mercredi 18 mars 2009 à 19:13 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> fuse (I have no idea about how FUSE works)
Then why break it? It’s very useful to be able to restrict the list of
users allowed to use it.
OTOH, given how it works, it would be really useful to make it use D-Bus
so that we’d hav
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
Hi,
>> Scanner is useful, imagine I work in a company working on a secret
>> project. One of the computer has a scanner. Do you wnat to give
>> scanning right to the internship student ?
> No, I want to give access to the raw scanner device only to its own
> dr
On 11693 March 1977, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
> from "main" file)?
Talk to upstream. Unless you have written the files it is *NOT* yours to
declare them being licensed in whatever way.
--
bye, Joerg
hmm, I should fill in the b
60 matches
Mail list logo
