Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name : ktp-contact-runner
Version: 0.6.2
Upstream Author: Dan Vratil
URL:
https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/network/telepathy/ktp-contac
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:52:59 PM Howard Chu wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Howard Chu:
> >> LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
> >> source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
> >
> > Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. B
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: KURASHIKI Satoru
* Package name: ruby-serverspec
Version : 0.6.28
Upstream Author : Gosuke Miyashita
* URL : http://serverspec.org/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : RSpec tests for your servers
Am Mittwoch, den 10.07.2013, 16:14 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:27:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:08:08PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Dear Debian people,
> > >
> > > I upload popularity-contest 1.58 which add support for encryp
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Clint Byrum writes:
> > I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
> > very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
> > library.
>
> I agree from a licensing standpoint.
>
> I think tha
* Stefano Zacchiroli [130710 13:07]:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> > careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> > This is a bit of a hassle, but wors
Clint Byrum writes:
> I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
> very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
> library.
I agree from a licensing standpoint.
I think that, from a security standpoint, an AGPLv3 license on a library
puts a
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libdata-dumper-gui-perl
Version : 0.003
Upstream Author : Toby Inkster
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Data-Dumper-GUI
On 07/10/2013 10:45 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> please file a bug against the debian-policy package.
Done, thanks!
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 09:20:37 AM Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > > There is just one caveat:
Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
> > > that piece of s
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libreply-perl
Version : 0.26
Upstream Author : Jesse Luehrs
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Reply/
* License :
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libclass-refresh-perl
Version : 0.05
Upstream Author : Jesse Luehrs
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Class-Refresh/
* L
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
> > piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
> > use it
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libdevel-overrideglobalrequire-perl
Version : 0.001
Upstream Author : David Golden
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Dev
Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2013-07-10 16:55:47)
> On 10-07-13 11:24, Martin Bagge / brother wrote:
> > On 2013-07-10 10:39, tobias.har...@dlr.de wrote:
> >> The Raspberry PI works with the software Raspbian and there is
> >> installed your operating system Debian. My question is: Do I need a
> >> l
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libconfig-ini-reader-ordered-perl
Version : 0.011
Upstream Author : Hans Dieter Pearcey
* URL : https://metacpan.org/releas
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
> > that piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your
> > right to use it wi
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
> piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
> use it without obnoxious and potentially crippling restrictions.
Not right. Y
On 10-07-13 11:24, Martin Bagge / brother wrote:
> On 2013-07-10 10:39, tobias.har...@dlr.de wrote:
>> The Raspberry PI works with the software Raspbian and there is
>> installed your operating system Debian. My question is: Do I need a
>> license for the software to develop in a company?
>
> No b
Hi Thomas,
On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Not sure who/where I should send this, or how I can update the policy
> manual myself, but this document:
please file a bug against the debian-policy package.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally s
On Wed, July 10, 2013 16:03, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Not sure who/where I should send this, or how I can update the policy
> manual myself,
I think you're looking for http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Policy, which
describes the points of contact and the change process of Debian Policy.
Cheers,
Thijs
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:27:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:08:08PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear Debian people,
> >
> > I upload popularity-contest 1.58 which add support for encrypted
> > submissions.
> > For this release it is not activated by default.
Hi,
Not sure who/where I should send this, or how I can update the policy
manual myself, but this document:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s-web-appl
still references /doc as being accessible (point 3 of chapter 11.5),
even though this feature has been removed
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:18:12AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the AGPL v3
> again and one implication of the license is that you can't locally fix a
> security issue without immediate disclosure. This doesn't fit my personal
>
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 01:06:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> > careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> > This is
On 2013-07-10, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> osgearth: incompatible-licenses /usr/bin/osgearth_cache LGPLv3+
> (libgnutls.so.26) + GPLv2 (libpoppler.so.19)
> osgearth: incompatible-licenses /usr/bin/osgearth_toc LGPLv3+
> (libgnutls.so.26) + GPLv2 (libpoppler.so.19)
> osgearth: incompatible-li
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> This is a bit of a hassle, but worst case means that you cannot help
> others wit
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> I'd take a patch to dh-acc ;-)
Including it in dh-acc isn't interesting since that is a per-package
thing (AFAICT). For instance if the release team wanted to do an
archive-wide ABI check and automatically block libraries based on that
in
On 10 July 2013 09:20, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
>
>> There is a simple Perl script to do that:
>
> Thanks, what about including this capability in a-c-c itself?
>
I'd take a patch to dh-acc ;-)
>> my $Version = `dpkg -s $Package|grep Version`;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2013-07-10 10:39, tobias.har...@dlr.de wrote:
> The Raspberry PI works with the software Raspbian and there is
> installed your operating system Debian. My question is: Do I need a
> license for the software to develop in a company?
No but if you
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'm a master-student of the "Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg" and I'm working at a
project with the DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt). In the
project I want to develop a datalogger-system with the Raspberry PI. The
Raspberry PI works with the software Raspbia
Hi Andreas,
On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> I just noticed in my local piuparts instance that adequate now issues
> incompatible-licenses tags, too. Nice feature, Jakub! :-)
indeed!
> @Holger: this requires adequate 0.7 - is that running on the slave?
nope, there is only
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
> There is a simple Perl script to do that:
Thanks, what about including this capability in a-c-c itself?
> my $Version = `dpkg -s $Package|grep Version`;
> chomp($Version);
> $Version=~s/\AVersion:\s*//g;
This would be better:
dpkg-qu
Paul Wise wrote:
I'm subscribed, no need to CC me.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
One of the "library descriptors" that a-c-c supports is a list of
includes/directories.
Thus for $most packages just installing -dev package and pointing
a-c-c at the list of:
dpkg -L $p
Hi,
I just noticed in my local piuparts instance that adequate now issues
incompatible-licenses tags, too. Nice feature, Jakub! :-)
Since I'm not too familiar with these issues, i'd like to see that
someone with more experience in that area verifies these problems and
files the corresponding R
36 matches
Mail list logo
