On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 01:01 -0700, John Lee wrote:
> I just wondered if I can sell computers that I build with Debian
> Linux pre-installed. The computers may also include programs I
> create. I tried to find the answer to this question but still
> unsure.
In addition to the other response you g
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
delta...@debian.org,debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: kf6-kstatusnotifieritem
Version : 6.0.0
Upstream Contact: KDE
* URL : https://invent.kde.org/framework
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
delta...@debian.org,debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: kf6-kcolorscheme
Version : 6.0.0
Upstream Contact: KDE
* URL : https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kcolo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, delta...@debian.org,
debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: kf6-ktexttemplate
Version : 6.0.0
Upstream Contact: KDE
* URL : https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kte
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Franz
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
delta...@debian.org,debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: kf6-ksvg
Version : 6.0.0
Upstream Contact: KDE
* URL : https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/ksvg
* Licens
Hey.
Seems some of the reverse engineers may have found some more
interesting stuff[0].
As far as I understand it, that would still require a running an
reachable sshd (so we'd still be mostly safe).
But he also thinks[1] that it may allow an interactive session.
(Not that this would change a l
Hello,
Michael Shuler wrote on 06/04/2024 at 16:31:28+0200:
> On 4/5/24 10:30, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote on 31/03/2024 at 14:31:37+0200:
>>> Wookey wrote on 31/03/2024 at 04:34:00+0200:
>>>
On 2024-03-30 20:52 +0100, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> Yubikeys, Nitrokey
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 06:32:47PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote:
> Am 06.04.24 um 18:29 schrieb Colin Watson:
> > There might be some small errors in this, but I couldn't see any when
> > eyeballing the resulting uniquified list of Maintainer fields. It looks
> > like 78% of source packages in uns
Am 06.04.24 um 18:29 schrieb Colin Watson:
There might be some small errors in this, but I couldn't see any when
eyeballing the resulting uniquified list of Maintainer fields. It looks
like 78% of source packages in unstable are team-maintained, which can't
reasonably be called an "exception".
On 2024-04-06 16:30:44 +0100 (+0100), Simon McVittie wrote:
[...]
> Indeed, if upstream does ship generated files in addition to the actual
> source code, we have traditionally said that Debian package maintainers
> "should, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the entire
> building
On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 at 15:54:51 +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
> On 4/6/24 1:42 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > You cannot simply proclaim that some git tree is the preferred form of
> > modification without shipping said git tree in our ftp archive.
> >
> > If your claim was true, then Debian and downstreams wo
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 01:46:28AM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 9c605edd-40a5-469c-9489-cbf80ac05970
> [1] Choice 1: Andreas Tille
> [2] Choice 2: Sruthi Chandran
> [ ] Choice 3: None Of The Abov
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 03:54:51PM +0200, kpcyrd wrote:
>...
> autotools pre-processed source code is clearly not "the preferred form of
> the work for making modifications", which is specifically what I'm saying
> Debian shouldn't consider a "source code input" either, to eliminate this
> vector f
On 4/5/24 10:30, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote on 31/03/2024 at 14:31:37+0200:
Wookey wrote on 31/03/2024 at 04:34:00+0200:
On 2024-03-30 20:52 +0100, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
Yubikeys, Nitrokeys, GNUK, OpenPGP smartcards and similar devices.
Possibly also TPM modules in com
On 4/6/24 1:42 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
You cannot simply proclaim that some git tree is the preferred form of
modification without shipping said git tree in our ftp archive.
If your claim was true, then Debian and downstreams would be violating
licences like the GPL by not providing the preferred
Package: wnpp
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 src:reprepro
Hi,
To tackle the much-requested #570623 multiple version management in reprepro, I took over Maintainership of the package
and integrated the existing work in experimental. There are three important bugs
Hi!
On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 19:13:22 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 01:31am +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Right now the preferred form of source in Debian is an upstream-signed
> > release tarball, NOT anything from git.
>
> The preferred form of modification is not simply up for
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 07:13:22PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 01:31am +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now the preferred form of source in Debian is an upstream-signed
> > release tarball, NOT anything from git.
>
> The preferred form of modification is
Thanks for the response!
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:12:33 +0200, Guillem wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 23:53:56 +0100, James Addison wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 19:36:33 +0200, Guillem wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2024-03-29 at 23:29:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > On 2024-03-29 22:41, Guillem Jover w
Hello,
On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 03:19pm +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> There are basically three dgit-compatible workflows, with some minor
> adjustments around handling of .gitignore files:
>
> - "patches applied" (git-debrebase, etc.):
> This is the workflow that proponents of dgit sometimes recom
Hello,
On Fri 05 Apr 2024 at 01:31am +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Right now the preferred form of source in Debian is an upstream-signed
> release tarball, NOT anything from git.
The preferred form of modification is not simply up for proclamation.
Our practices, which are focused around git, mak
21 matches
Mail list logo
