Le Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
> of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form text to be mixed into the
> copyright file to explain things that aren't part of the bits that have
> a fixe
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Salvatore Bonaccorso
* Package name: libcrypt-rsa-perl
Version : 1.97
Upstream Author : Vipul Ved Prakash
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-RSA/
* License : Artistic | GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
Descriptio
Noah Slater writes:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:40:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think you have to go back most of the way to Sam's original proposal.
> Is there any reason a Comment field wouldn't suffice?
I guess it's a matter of taste, but I think there's a significant
difference bet
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:40:46PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think you have to go back most of the way to Sam's original proposal.
Is there any reason a Comment field wouldn't suffice?
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lis
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: William Pitcock
* Package name: python-greenlet
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Bob Ippolito
* URL : http://undefined.org/python/#greenlet
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: C
Description : lightweight in-process
Steve Langasek writes:
> Can you provide a more precise pointer to this feature? Given that
> the early revisions were done by wiki, I'm finding it non-trivial to
> locate a specification for this. I see earlier revisions that seem to
> include free-form text in the examples, but nothing that s
Hi Russ,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater writes:
> > Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
> > for you?
> Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
> of the draft that allowed arbitrary f
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: 375 (new: 3)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 133 (new: 2)
Total number of packages request
On 2009-06-11, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:11:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> OTOH, the most complex copyright file you have is
>> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/planet-venus/current/copyright
>> where the format is still applicable.
>
> Sure, it works very
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater writes:
>
> > Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
> > for you?
>
> Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
> of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form
Noah Slater writes:
> Is there some particular thing you think I want that makes things hard
> for you?
Well, you could restore the feature that was present in earlier versions
of the draft that allowed arbitrary free-form text to be mixed into the
copyright file to explain things that aren't pa
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 532804 linux-2.6
Bug#532804: general: kernel messages appear when they shouldn't on LVM+LUKS
systems
Bug reassigned from package `general' to `linux-2.6'.
> severity 532804 Minor
Severity level `Minor' is not known.
Recognized are: crit
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:11:53PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> OTOH, the most complex copyright file you have is
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/planet-venus/current/copyright
> where the format is still applicable.
Sure, it works very nicely for me!
> Now compare with
> http:
Package: general
Severity: minor
Problem reproduction:
Install a debian testing selecting LVM+encryption.
Then, when the system boots, although there is the option quiet for
silencing the kernel messages, after entering the passphrase, you start
seeing kernel messages along with their timestamp on
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:56:09PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette writes:
> > > That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
> > > than DEP5-like ones.
> >
> > Yes, I agree. My existing pre-DE
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:48:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
> > That doesn’t hold. Most of my copyright files are much easier to read
> > than DEP5-like ones.
>
> Yes, I agree. My existing pre-DEP5 copyright files are easier for a
> human to read than the DEP5 format.
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:08 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
>> Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading,
>> is one of a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files
>> can be confusing and hard to read. The copyright proposal is s
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:32:44PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Moreover, these "reasons" are all pretty pointless if the format is not made
> mandatory, which is supposedly not the goal.
Please, stop with this line of argument.
Various people already find value in the format primarily because:
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
> "packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
> exception"?
Even with the DEP-5 copyright file, you can at most generate a candidate
set that you still have to manually check. Ther
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2009-06-11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ack, sorry, that's the wrong part. I meant to paste the one
>> immediately below:
>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:23:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Other reasons that are ... ? cf. <1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru>
>
> I guess various people have various reasons.
>
> Personally, I consider having debian/copyrig
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gunnar Wolf
* Package name: libttfunk-ruby
Version : 0~20090123
Upstream Author : Gregory Brown
* URL : http://prawn.majesticseacreature.com/
* License : (to be determined - likely, GPL-2)
Programming Lang: Ruby
Desc
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:23:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Other reasons that are ... ? cf. <1244737135.14878.211.ca...@shizuru>
I guess various people have various reasons.
Personally, I consider having debian/copyright be machine-parseable to
be a good thing in general; after all, all the o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gunnar Wolf
* Package name: libprawn-ruby
Version : 0.4.1
Upstream Author : Gregory Brown <>, James Healy <>
* URL : http://prawn.majesticseacreature.com/
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : Fas
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 05:54:42PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > If the sole purpose of the forma
3On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:16:42PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
> derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
> files: their customers may need to get a list of licenses used in the
> (subset) of pac
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:33:45PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
> > > if it doesn't apply to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:30:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
> > if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is
> > machine-parseable is usel
+1 to Peter's post. This is insightful.
I, for one, think that Acme:: modules shouldn't even get packaged at
all, unless they're a prerequisite of a serious package -- like
Acme::Damn was picked up by some other module as a dependency.
Sometimes, Acme:: modules are useful (like ::Damn) -- beyond
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> If the sole purpose of the format is to have a machine-parseable format,
> if it doesn't apply to all packages, then the fact that it is
> machine-parseable is useless, because you won't be able to machine-parse
> all copyright informat
On Do, 11 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Wait… you don’t know of an existing reason and are trying to make up
> one?
>
> Thanks for making my point. We don’t need DEP5. The sane process is to
> look for solutions to existing problems, not to look for problems
> needing an existing solution.
Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:16 +0300, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> > - and a reason
>
> That's the killer point we should concentrate on.
[ ... ]
> Would Debian benefit from being able to easily query for things like
> "packages linking to OpenSSL, licensed under GPL, but without an
> exception"?
W
Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 16:08 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
> Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading, is one
> of
> a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files can be confusing
> and
> hard to read. The copyright proposal is simple, and provides consis
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette writes:
> >
> > > Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
> > > large source packages, for which maintainers have already ex
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:37:39PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> I think previous discussions on this list have made it clear that "legally
> meaningful way" (as you put it) can be at most optional and is in practise not
> applicable for non-trivial or a least medium-size-up upstream project.
Yes,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
- and a reason
That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
files: their customers may need to get a list of l
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 04:16:42PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > - and a reason
>
> That's the killer point we should concentrate on.
Let's not forget that a standard format, for editing and for reading, is one of
a number of motivations for this. The existing set of files can be confusing and
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:56:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>
> > Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
> > large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained they
> > don’t want to waste their time with such bikeshedding,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
Hi,
> That's the killer point we should concentrate on. I know commercial
> derivatives of Debian can benefit from machine-readable debian/copyright
> files: their customers may need to get a list of licenses used in the
> (subset) of packages the derivative provides them,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:56:46PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> We are developing DEP 5 to codify best practice in a format that is machine
> parseable. If best practice means that we don't list copyright statements in a
> legally meaningful way, then so be it.
I think previous discussions on this
to, 2009-06-11 kello 15:01 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi kirjoitti:
> I think we need:
> - one tool that generate the new copyright files. People forget to check
>and update files; and the non-tiny packages need such tools (if we need
>the DEP5 format). (the tools as an helper, ev. overwritte
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
can
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Unless you are volunteering to write and maintain these files for our
> large source packages, for which maintainers have already explained they
> don’t want to waste their time with such bikeshedding, this discussion
> is 100% useless.
That's a false dichotomy. It's
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 23:56 +0100, Noah Slater a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:44:33PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
> > only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
> > can change rapidl
On Jun 11, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> The more I read about this [DEP5], the more I get the feeling that it is
> only pushed by people who never maintained large source packages (that
> can change rapidly)
And/or like to spend more time arguing technicalities than doing actual
work.
DEP5 is wasteful c
--
Add Me For Link Exhange
payal.webmas...@gmail.com
thanks
On 2009-06-11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
>> The BSD license says, in part:
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> are met:
>> 1. Redistributions of source
47 matches
Mail list logo
