On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 07:58:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I think we (DSA) have been reluctant to add new third-party-run services
> under debian.org, and it's not clear to me if that infrastructure would
> be run by the cloud team on behalf of debian, or if the cloud team would
> control t
Russ Allbery left as an exercise for the reader:
> My intuition (I admit that I haven't done a survey) is that Files-Excluded
> is less frequently used for cases where upstream has not done license
> verification and is more frequently used for cases where upstream
> disagrees with Debian over what
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:35:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, Phil Morrell wrote:
> > I have raised https://salsa.debian.org/debian/grow-your-ideas/-/issues/15
>
> Thanks for this, but this issue like a few others that have been filed do
> describe problems but fail to pr
Phil Morrell writes:
> The point about uscan is interesting, since if upstream does take on the
> hard work of license verification such that packaging is just checking,
> then they're unlikely to have any Files-Excluded, so that would have to
> merged somehow.
My intuition (I admit that I haven
https://matija.suklje.name/how-and-why-to-properly-write-copyright-statements-in-your-code
TLDR: I think REUSE.software is a bad idea that is worse than what
Debian already invented with Machine-readable debian/copyright file. I
guess if upstream uses it, there's no reason not to ignore that as a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Scott Kitterman
* Package name: clamav-cvdupdate
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : The Clamav Team
* URL : https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/cvdupdate
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Cl
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Francois Mazen
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, franc...@mzf.fr
* Package name: nicotine
Version : 3.2.0
Upstream Author : Nicotine+ Team
* URL : https://nicotine-plus.org/
* License : GPL-3+
Programming La
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Doug Torrance
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, dtorra...@piedmont.edu
* Package name: node-less-plugin-clean-css
Version : 1.5.1
Upstream Author : Luke Page
* URL : https://github.com/less/less-plugin-clean-css
* Lice
❦ 26 January 2022 10:04 +01, Marc Haber:
>>> Are the IP ranges of the Cloud Providers registered that badly that
>>> deb.debian.org wouldn't reliably point to the mirrors inside the
>>> provider's infrastructure? Or are the cloud providers' mirrors
>>> differnet from what we expect from a Debian
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:47:49PM -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The cloud team wants to make folks aware of a possible change to the cloud
> images. The team plans to register a new domain, debian.cloud, for mirrors
> inside of cloud provider infrastructure. For such mirrors, sourc
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:04:47AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> >The cloud team wants to make folks aware of a possible change to the cloud
> >> >images. The team plans to register a new domain, debian.cloud, for
> >> >mirrors
> >> >inside of cloud provider infrastructure. For such mirrors, sou
Hi,
About the client and server, if I am not wrong, about 3 years ago ISC
dhcp was the only implementation able to configure DHCPv6 clients by
their MAC addresses (thing that I needed at work). It is a pity that ISC
is giving less love to it. That said, the EOL date is still TBA
(https://www.isc
On 1/26/22 10:04, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:38:00 -0800, Ross Vandegrift
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 07:25:18AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:47:49 -0800, Ross Vandegrift
wrote:
The cloud team wants to make folks aware of a possible change to the cloud
ima
~ Stephan Lachnit [2022-01-26 15:20 +0100]:
>> But already now, a DEP-5 file could be provided to REUSE. One would have
>> to check whether the ones Debian provides would work in the default
>> location for DEP-5 files in REUSE (`.reuse/dep5`). If not, I suspect
>> there would be no large changes n
Hi Marc
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 07:25:18AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Are the IP ranges of the Cloud Providers registered that badly that
> deb.debian.org wouldn't reliably point to the mirrors inside the
> provider's infrastructure? Or are the cloud providers' mirrors
> differnet from what we exp
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:59 PM Max Mehl wrote:
>
> FWIW, as you may have already noticed, REUSE makes use of DEP-5 as well,
> as one (and honestly the least preferred) of the three ways how you can
> label your files. We have a better file-based format in the works [^3],
> and would probably also
Thank you Stephan for bringing REUSE into the discussion and Cc'ing me
(I am not part of this list). Please let me just add two small things to
your otherwise encompassing mail.
~ Stephan Lachnit [2022-01-26 12:49 +0100]:
> - What is REUSE?
If you have ~15min of time and rather fancy video intros
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, Phil Morrell wrote:
> I have raised https://salsa.debian.org/debian/grow-your-ideas/-/issues/15
Thanks for this, but this issue like a few others that have been filed do
describe problems but fail to provide "project/improvement ideas". We are
good at figuring out what's
Hi Ross (2022.01.26_05:47:49_+)
> Our first choice would be a subzone of debian.org. But we are not in DSA, and
> haven't been able to get help with this request. So in the interest of making
> progress, a new domain is the simplest alternative.
FWIW, DSA has the ability to host domains in D
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:43:36AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Without the NEW queue, there would be no point at which packaging receives
> any sort of review. I'd prefer Debian to deliver at least some level of
> quality.
+1
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|repr
Hi,
Not a DD, still raising my voice. I'm *not* advocating that Fedora's
processes are "better", just trying to add ideas.
On 26/01/2022 11:43, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:38:01PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
I think we should forego the NEW queue. If people want to che
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:38:01PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> For me, the copyright check is just a bad excuse. People upload
>> non-distributable stuff everywhere and it seems the world continue to go
>> round. What amount of non-distributable packages is stopped by
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:43 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:38:01PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >
> > I think we should forego the NEW queue. If people want to check
> > packages, they can do it once they are in unstable with regular bugs.
>
> Without the NEW queue, the
Since I feel this fits to the current discussion on the mailing list,
let me quickly introduce you to an idea I had for a while to improve
the copyright review situation.
TLDR: for projects using REUSE, we could generate d/copyright
automatically and approve the copyright check in NEW automatically
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:38:01PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> For me, the copyright check is just a bad excuse. People upload
> non-distributable stuff everywhere and it seems the world continue to go
> round. What amount of non-distributable packages is stopped by the NEW
> queue?
>
> I think
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:44:37AM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> > Quoting Vincent Bernat (2022-01-25 21:38:01)
> >> I didn't comment at first because I thought someone else would raise
> >> the idea. But it seems people still like the idea of a NEW queue. Not
> >> me
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Vincent Bernat (2022-01-25 21:38:01)
>> I didn't comment at first because I thought someone else would raise
>> the idea. But it seems people still like the idea of a NEW queue. Not
>> me. The NEW queue is a hindrance.
>
> For the record, I don't "like" the N
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:38:00 -0800, Ross Vandegrift
wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 07:25:18AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:47:49 -0800, Ross Vandegrift
>> wrote:
>> >The cloud team wants to make folks aware of a possible change to the cloud
>> >images. The team plans to re
Andreas Tille writes:
...
> May be some intermediate step would be to not hide packages in NEW queue
> but exposing them as an apt source. If I'm correct this is not the case
> since it had certain legal consequences for the project if code with
> certain non-free licenses would be downloadable
29 matches
Mail list logo
