Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 13:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the > > machine-interpretable copyright file to validate packages freeness, > > license compatibilities and so on. > > Interesting. So you think a single source package could produ

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

Frank Lin PIAT writes: > As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it > would be useful to add an optional header There is only one header in a DEP-5 copyright file. I think you mean “add an optional field to the Files section”. > (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to

Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)

Neil Williams writes: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:11:06 +0100 > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> > As mentioned off-list, I disagree strongly. sysroot - as it >> > appears at the moment - retains the hacks in dpkg-cross which means that >> > cross-building anything more complex than a trivial rootf

Bug#554507: ITP: fjbtndrv -- Linux driver and tools for the tablet buttons of Fujitsu Tablet PCs

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Robert Gerlach * Package name: fjbtndrv * Version : 2.1.0 * Upstream Author : k...@gmx.de * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/fjbtndrv/ * License : GPL2, GPL3 * Programming Lang: C, Shell * Description : Linux driver

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:47:52 +0100 Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > Hello, > > As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it > would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or > whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license. You'll need

DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

Hello, As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license. The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the machine-interpreta

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

I'm commenting a bit between the paragraphs to sharpen my mind :) On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:09:18PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > What I was aiming to is a kind of document root which is under full > control of the package manager; hence where the sysadm cannot touch > anything by hand. That

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > I don't get it. This would of course solve the problem of FHS compliance > but apart from that it doesn't gain anything, does it? > Now, do I totally misunderstand the issue here, or are we just moving > the /var/www problem to /var/

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Steve Langasek writes: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid >>> Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these >>> ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being >>> s

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:03:20AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:50:01PM +0100]: > > > Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a consensus quite > > > soon. > > > Then, we might not be able to fix _all_ web apps until squeeze, but at

Bug#554430: ITP: libfilter-crypto-perl -- libfilter-crypto-perl is a library to create runnable Perl files encrypted with OpenSSL libcrypto

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "C.J. Adams-Collier" * Package name: libfilter-crypto-perl Version : 1.29 Upstream Author : Steve Hay * URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Filter-Crypto/ * License : Perl Programming Lang: Perl Description : libf

Bug#554431: ITP: yui3 -- Yahoo! User Interface Library Version 3

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" * Package name: yui3 Version : 3.0.0 Upstream Author : Yahoo! Developers! * URL : http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/3/ * License : BSD Programming Lang: JavaScript, CSS

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

Cyril Brulebois dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:54:17PM +0100]: > Gunnar Wolf (04/11/2009): > > So, given the attention to this thread: Do you judge this as > > policy-compliant? > > What makes me wonder a bit is what would happen in case several > webservers were to implement this kind of behaviou

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:50:01PM +0100]: > > Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a consensus quite > > soon. > > Then, we might not be able to fix _all_ web apps until squeeze, but at > > least > > tthose few with dir-or-file-in-var-www :-) > > I see

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

Gunnar Wolf (04/11/2009): > So, given the attention to this thread: Do you judge this as > policy-compliant? What makes me wonder a bit is what would happen in case several webservers were to implement this kind of behaviour. When installing several of them at the same time, the resulting content

common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

[ adding -policy to Cc: ] On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:08:02PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a consensus quite > soon. > Then, we might not be able to fix _all_ web apps until squeeze, but at least > tthose few with dir-or-file-in-var-www :-)

Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?

Hi, > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Montag, 2. November 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: >>> Is /var/cache really such a bad option? I mean, the entire web content >>> is re-generated from templates & graphs are re-generated from the rrd >>> databases every 5 min

cross-building, apt-cross and multiarch

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:20:31 +0100 Hector Oron wrote: > Hello, > > 2009/11/4 Goswin von Brederlow : > > Neil Williams writes: > > While being highly interesting talk to me, this discussion is no > relevant to the ITP. I would suggest to either fork the thread or > discuss at debian-embed...@l.d

Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:11:06 +0100 Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > As mentioned off-list, I disagree strongly. sysroot - as it > > appears at the moment - retains the hacks in dpkg-cross which means that > > cross-building anything more complex than a trivial rootfs becomes > > impossible. Cross-

Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?

Hi, On Mittwoch, 4. November 2009, Stephen Gran wrote: > _contents_ of /var/cache/munin, and I don't recall the FHS saying that > it expected applications to cope gracefully with the directory structure > being yanked out from under them by addled admins. Right. (It only says apps have to cope gr

Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?

This one time, at band camp, Holger Levsen said: > Hi Tom, > > On Montag, 2. November 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: > > Is /var/cache really such a bad option? I mean, the entire web content > > is re-generated from templates & graphs are re-generated from the rrd > > databases every 5 minutes. So even

Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?

Hi Tom, On Montag, 2. November 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: > Is /var/cache really such a bad option? I mean, the entire web content > is re-generated from templates & graphs are re-generated from the rrd > databases every 5 minutes. So even if someone did delete the directory, > it'll just be recreate

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

Hi, On Mittwoch, 4. November 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Oh yes, that would be awesome, but I doubt it would be anywhere near to > be obtainable in Squeeze time. Maybe you can store this somewhere in a > PostSqueeze discussion page? Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a c

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:51:44AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Of course... I highly value Debian's ability to have just-installed > package in a state that just-works. We do have /usr/lib/cgi-bin, which > achieves this goal - And I support the idea of having a > /var/lib/www-root or something alon

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:19:13AM +0100, sean finney wrote: > > OK on those without Alias, but how about whose that do have Alias-es? Do > > you have a list of them and which file ship? Do you have some kind of > > intermediate level where the maintainer can specify the Alias only once > > and hav

Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)

Hello, 2009/11/4 Goswin von Brederlow : > Neil Williams writes: While being highly interesting talk to me, this discussion is no relevant to the ITP. I would suggest to either fork the thread or discuss at debian-embed...@l.d.o Thanks ! I appreciate your comments. -- Héctor Orón -- To UNSU

Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)

Neil Williams writes: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:22:14 +0100 > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Hector Oron writes: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > 2009/11/2 Goswin von Brederlow : >> >> Why do you need --sysroot support? Or what prevents a --sysroot >> >> of / when using the multiarch directories? >>

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

Tzafrir Cohen dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:11:42AM +]: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:49:54AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:08:46AM +0100, sean finney wrote: > > > > We have webservers other than Apache. > > > > When raising this kind of counter argument, is us

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 11921 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: >> E: ftp-master: debian-rules-is-symlink >> Not a requirement that's derived from Policy at all. If you think this is >> important to require for all packages due to the side effect on lintian's >> ability to do further checking, p

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> E: ftp-master: section-is-dh_make-template >>> Sections in source packages have minimal impact; the section that matters is >>> the one specified in the archive override. There's no reason that the >>> inval

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid > > Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these > > ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being > > static, but there doesn't a

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > I'm not complaining about you filing bugs on *my* packages. I'm > complaining about a mass bug filing on *any* packages, using standards > that have not previously been approved by the project, because *doing > so skews priorities for the project as a

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:49:54AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:08:46AM +0100, sean finney wrote: > > > We have webservers other than Apache. > > When raising this kind of counter argument, is usually nice to also > provide (pointers to) solutions :-) "For apache2

Re: dir-or-file-in-var-www on single-HTML file web "apps" or the like

hiya, On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:49:54AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > with respect to those that don't, it's been previously discussed and > > deemed okay for them not to work out of the box, which is a relatively > > small cost for the benefit of FHS compliance and general safety/sanity.

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>> Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer >>> visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first, >>> this tag is in nonfatal. >> I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed. > > Yes, a

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> > Do you understand why people are getting annoyed ? > >> They have a lot of bloody gall to be annoyed thatpeople file >> bugs about serious policy violations that they have

Re: Lintian based autorejects

>> Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer >> visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first, >> this tag is in nonfatal. > I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed. Yes, and I really like that I do not have to do this my