Dear all,
As a follow-up to Taiwan Mini-DebConf 2009 in Taipei [1], we will be
arranging a mini-DebCamp in Khon Kaen, Thailand, during March 13-19, 2010 [2].
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianTaiwan/MiniDebConf2009
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianThailand/MiniDebCamp2010
The agenda is under
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Koch
* Package name: zkclient
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Stefan Groschupf ,
Peter Voss ,
Johannes Zillmann
* URL : http://github.com/sgroschupf/zkclient
* License :
Norbert Preining writes:
> Hi Goswin,
>
> thanks for the very interesing and profound answer.
>
> On Mi, 20 Jan 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The other thing is how to manage the source in version control now.
>> Do you commit the source with all patches applied? Or all patches
>> unapplie
Le Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:43:37AM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> It depends on the precise nature of the data. It is quite easy to
> produce Rdata files which are not the prefered form for modification.
> For example, the following temp.Rdata would not be the prefered form
> for modification:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: zeromq
Version : 2.0~beta2 (right now)
Upstream Author : iMartix Corp.
* URL : http://www.zeromq.org/
* License : LGPL
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Needed for zeromq library:
* Package name: openpgm
Version : 2.0.something
Upstream Author : Have to check this
* URL : http://code.google.com
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Ondřej Surý"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: softhsm
Version : 1.1.2
Upstream Author : Rickard Bellgrim, .SE (The Internet Infrastructure
Foundation)
* URL : http://trac.opendnssec.org/wiki/SoftH
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
> It is technically true, but I think that we are drifting. To my
> knowledge, there is no such .Rdata file in R packages.
I haven't checked the archive exhaustively, so I don't know. It's
certainly possible to generate, though.
> The current subject of
Martin Koegler wrote:
> I must admit, that I have not read anything about GNU maintainers,
> but GNU has usually a bigger "philosophical overhead".
Then I suggest you to read the appropriate documenation [1] before
jumping to premature and possibly incorrect conclusions (what does the
phrase "phil
> (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn" under
> another name just because the prospective new maintainer cannot
> communicate successfully with the original one to negotiate the
> takeover. I once again urge you to write to to
> avoid this unpleasant scenario.)
Don't rea
Marc Leeman wrote:
> > (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn"
> > under another name just because
>
> Don't read to much into this;
Well, as a matter of fact I don't. Probably I wouldn't have replied
to the thread if pth wasn't a GNU package, but my opinion would be the
Charles Plessy writes:
> Once again, I would like to remind how disproportionate is the time
> that we have to spend for this kind of issues (.Rdata files, PDF
> files, documenting copyrights of source files we do not use,
> repackaging to remove windows executables, …) in order to get free
> sof
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 619 (new: 7)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 132 (new: 6)
Total number of packages request
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> I've often expressly, and in public, thanked the specific people who put
> forth efforts to ensure free software in the Debian operating system. I
> encourage anyone else to do this too; it's a good way to increase the
> likelihood such work con
Le Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:10:25AM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> That may be what you're discussing, but I'm talking about why it's
> unreasonable to expect the ftpmasters to know what a relatively
> specialized package's on-disk data format looks like, and in which
> cases it is a non-lossy
Ben Finney writes:
[summary: package in NEW was rejected, then accepted; the only
difference was going from a ‘copyright’ file containing no duplication
of original-source copyright notices, to one containing copyright
notices that don't match the original source]
> It's not the file I have in m
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:07:29AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> This is also what I rant about. They do not know and asked, that is good. I
> spent the time to provide detailed answers and they are ignored, that's bad.
> Before the rejection there was no issue about the .Rdata files, and now they
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> [summary: package in NEW was rejected, then accepted; the only
> difference was going from a ‘copyright’ file containing no duplication
> of original-source copyright notices, to one containing copyright
> notices that don't match the or
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > A little time after DebConf excitement has calmed down, I would
> > still like to see answers, in the public record, from the ftpmasters
> > on this issue.
>
> I am not an ftp master, but I think this follows
Ben Finney writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:39:35PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > A little time after DebConf excitement has calmed down, I would
> > > still like to see answers, in the public record, from the ftpmasters
> > > on this issue.
> >
> > I am not an
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 02:48:39PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > - Policy requires reproduction of the copyright notices for a work
> > in debian/copyright.
> This point in particular I don't think is clear. It has been argued
> several times in the past that it is the copyright *license* that
On 2010年01月20日 23:39, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Norbert Preining writes:
On Mo, 28 Dez 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Mind that git-buildpackage with normal 1.0 source format does NOT pollute
the git repository, so my expectation is that the 3.0 format does the
same, but alas, it do
22 matches
Mail list logo
