On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 15:57, M. Zhou wrote:
> (1) do you know any important but missing reference materials?
Is it worth explicitly mentioning weights are also released under very
restrictive non-free licenses? The list of Apache/MIT licenses might
mislead a reader into believing all weights are
Hi all,
I heard that people were looking for me during FOSDEM.
I spent a couple of hours and finally get something draft-ish
for the previously mentioned general resolution on the software
freedom interpolation with respect to AI software.
https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg
(I turned the
Hi!
On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 22:33:16 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 17:35 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > But also, in this particular case, it's not the issue of the spec but of a
> > particular tool trying to enforce the rule.
> >
> > I'll file a bug to fix it.
> I fin
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Peugnet
* Package name: golang-github-tonistiigi-vt100
Version : 0.0~git20240514.90bafcd-1
Upstream Author : Tõnis Tiigi
* URL : https://github.com/tonistiigi/vt100
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Descr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Peugnet
* Package name: golang-github-tonistiigi-go-archvariant
Version : 1.0.0-1
Upstream Author : Tõnis Tiigi
* URL : https://github.com/tonistiigi/go-archvariant
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Descr
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Peugnet
* Package name: golang-github-package-url-packageurl-go
Version : 0.1.3-1
Upstream Author : package-url authors
* URL : https://github.com/package-url/packageurl-go
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nicolas Peugnet
* Package name: golang-github-moby-buildkit
Version : 0.14.1-1
Upstream Author : Moby
* URL : https://github.com/moby/buildkit
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Go
Description : concurrent,
hi,
I'd like to extend adequate(1) to allow maintainers to suppress the reporting of
Debian policy violations, much like lintian has overrides. if you care about
binary package qa testing, please review:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adequate/-/wikis/proposals/overrides
if you don't li
Hi,
On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 17:35 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> But also, in this particular case, it's not the issue of the spec but of a
> particular tool trying to enforce the rule.
>
> I'll file a bug to fix it.
I finally found many reports already dealing with this issue in the bug tracker.
Hi Jonas,
On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 17:05 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Abou Al Montacir (2025-02-01 16:13:44)
> >
> > >
> > On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 14:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Simon McVittie (2025-02-01 14:21:38)
> > > > On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al
Quoting Abou Al Montacir (2025-02-01 16:13:44)
>
> >
> On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 14:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Simon McVittie (2025-02-01 14:21:38)
> > > On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > > > Bug-
> > > > Upstream:
> > > > https://gitlab.com/freepa
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 10:14 AM Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> With regards to other possible values (No, NotNeeded), I find it a bit hacky
> to use this field to provide an upstream bug URL.
> I would completely remove this practice and keep this field human readable
> and understandable to be a sim
>
On Sat, 2025-02-01 at 14:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Simon McVittie (2025-02-01 14:21:38)
> > On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > > Bug-
> > > Upstream: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378
> >
> > I believe the intende
On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Bug-Upstream: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378
I believe the intended DEP-3 syntax for this is:
Bug: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378
so using that instead of Bug-Upst
Quoting Simon McVittie (2025-02-01 14:21:38)
> On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 at 13:13:32 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > Bug-Upstream:
> > https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378
>
> I believe the intended DEP-3 syntax for this is:
>
> Bug: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/laz
Hi Abou,
Quoting Abou Al Montacir (2025-02-01 13:13:32)
> According
> to https://udd.debian.org/patches.cgi?src=lazarus&version=3.8%2Bdfsg1-4 my
> package have a patch with invalid metadata. There seem to be that the tool
> considers the following as an error:
> Forwarded: Yes
> Bug-Upstream: http
Hi All,
According
to https://udd.debian.org/patches.cgi?src=lazarus&version=3.8%2Bdfsg1-4 my
package have a patch with invalid metadata. There seem to be that the tool
considers the following as an error:
Forwarded: Yes
Bug-Upstream: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/lazarus/lazarus/-/issues/41378
17 matches
Mail list logo
