Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
* Package name: golang-github-liamg-clinch
Version : 1.5.6
Upstream Author : Liam Galvin
* URL : https://github.com/liamg/clinch
* License : public domain
Programming Lang: Go
Description : Go li
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 13:55 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Can we have better automated tooling, either in Lintian, or in when
> source packages are rebuilt, that can take care of this?
>
> The other thing that's perhaps considering here is that unfortunately,
> there are some upstreams that are e
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:41:05 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, January 21, 2022 1:33:07 PM EST Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Stealing a binary does not go through NEW.
> It does. Binary is new to that source so there is no existing override.
If this is correct, dak / the override system must
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian-med team
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: malt
Version : 0.5.2
Upstream Author : Daniel Huson
* URL : https://github.com/danielhuson/malt
* License : GPL-3+
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> 1. When the SO name changes and the binary package name is adjusted
> accordingly, it is not super rare for the maintainer to mess something up in
> the renaming and end up with an empty binary package, which does no one any
On Friday, January 21, 2022 1:33:07 PM EST Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 2. New binary package "steals" binary from another source. This is
> > sometimes OK. Sometimes it's accidental. It could also be malicious (I
> > don't remember
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 2. New binary package "steals" binary from another source. This is
> sometimes
> OK. Sometimes it's accidental. It could also be malicious (I don't remember
> if I've every actually seen this done for an intentional "steal" o
On Friday, January 21, 2022 12:19:12 PM EST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Mo,
>
> Am Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:51:12AM -0500 schrieb M. Zhou:
> > I'd rather propose choice C. Because I to some extent understand
> > both sides who support either A or B. I maintain bulky C++ packages,
> > and I also had a
Hi,
I'm not involved in ftp-master, but...
On 21-01-2022 18:19, Andreas Tille wrote:
Am Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:51:12AM -0500 schrieb M. Zhou:
I'd rather propose choice C. Because I to some extent understand
both sides who support either A or B. I maintain bulky C++ packages,
and I also had a
Hi Mo,
Am Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:51:12AM -0500 schrieb M. Zhou:
> I'd rather propose choice C. Because I to some extent understand
> both sides who support either A or B. I maintain bulky C++ packages,
> and I also had a little experience reviewing packages on behalf of
> ftp-team.
>
> A -- Some
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for mentioning this. Your post inspired me to came up a
new choice.
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 11:33 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> This recently happed for me in the case of onetbb (which was not
> uploaded by myself - so I'm not even asking for myself while other
> packages o
On 2022-01-19 11:03:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > Thanks for elaborating.
>
> > The concern is not licensing, but maintenance. It is covered in Debian
> > Policy ยง 4.13:
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#embedded-code-copies
>
>
Hi,
if a source package in Debian creates a new binary package name it has
to pass the new queue. If I understand this posting from last year[1]
correctly (people in CC who were in CC of that posting) this is just
because nobody has written some kind of "auto-approver" for dak.
Usually the "soci
13 matches
Mail list logo
