Re: [pkg-go] Bug#856139: certspotter: long description advertises commercial service

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:03:09AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If a free software implementation of the remote service exists that a > package can work with, then it can remain in main. If not, it cannot. There are no free software server-side implementation of e.g. the ICQ protocol, as far as

DSA Team Meeting minutes, 2013-10-11

Present: luca (Luca Filipozzi) paravoid (Faidon Liambotis) weasel (Peter Palfrader) zumbi (Héctor Orón Martínez) Mithrandir (Tollef Fog Heen) zobel (Martin Zobel-Helas) sgran (Stephen Gran) Ongoing project update o debian.org mail move status (tfheen, sgran) - big move is done, cleanup

Re: Introducing http.debian.net, Debian's mirrors redirector

Hi, On 06/21/12 23:32, Raphael Geissert wrote: > After several iterations to solve problems related to Debian's mirrors > network, I am happy to announce a fully-functional solution that solves many > of the shortcomings of previous iterations: http://http.debian.net I have two objections if I

Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project

On 03/23/12 15:28, Francesca Ciceri wrote: So, I wrote a draft - mainly based on the one [4] created for Ubuntu by Matt Zimmerman with the help of Mary Gardiner, Valerie Aurora and Benjamin Mako Hill - and I'd like to propose it to the DPL to be official published. Thanks for doing this. Howev

Re: commercial spam on planet

Holger Levsen wrote: since a while, we see unsolicted commercial links and images on planet, mostly about flattr. I have a feeling that we're generalizing a specific problem, trying to draw a line on what's acceptable on Planet and what's not, which IMHO is impossible get a consensus on. I

Re: On terminology

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:03AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: >> Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I >> try to explain these to potential contributors? >> >> Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be

On terminology

Russ Allbery wrote: > Which is true, and it would probably be a good idea to clarify wording > that refers to Debian Members, since that's not the terminology that we > use in general and, with the existence of DMs, it can be confusing. Nowadays, we're asking people to become Maintainers so that th

Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)

On 25/06/2010 07:43 μμ, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert >> d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop >> worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of >> making things public that their authors do n

Re: PTS subscription exposure

Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > For the same reason I don't play into facebook's hand with handing them > all the linking informations they would like to know (even if some > people seem to be personally offended when not being linked). People do > contact random people that they find being attached to so

Re: PTS subscription exposure

Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > This is IMNSHO a serious violation and breach of privacy. I understand the privacy concerns and not liking the fact that someone made some data public that weren't explicitelly marked as such. However, could you please bear with me for a moment and try to explain why you w

Re: [RFH] ferm integration into dsa-puppet.git

Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide us with a new > dsa-puppet git branch with a module "ferm" that we can roll out to all > our hosts. > > It might want to use information from the other puppet modules like > "apache2_security_mirror" or "buildd" t

Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - getting implemented

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > In the past few days I've been in touch with Christoph Berg as a DAM > representative, which has been implementing the inactivity proposal > starting from the sample scripts of [1]. Then, DAM also had a first run > of the inactivity test (i.e. 2 years without neither an

Re: Sourceless but useless: how about ignoring some irrelevant files instead of repackaging?

Steve Langasek wrote: > What is the upstream zipfile in question? > > , which seems to be the > right upstream zipfile, contains only the 6 files included in the > ttf-gfs-didot orig.tar.gz. http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/GFS_DIDOT_OT.zip (OT=OpenTy

Re: Sourceless but useless: how about ignoring some irrelevant files instead of repackaging?

Charles Plessy wrote: > in one of the packages I mainatain, upstream left some zlib and ncurses static > libraries for Win32 in the source tarball. Without the copy of the zlib and > ncurses sources. <> > Alternatively, I can of course ask Upstream to remove the Windows binaries, > but > how can I

Re: Sourceless but useless: how about ignoring some irrelevant files instead of repackaging?

Steve Langasek wrote: > Sourceless PDF files are not a violation of the Social Contract / DFSG. If > you are having to sink time into finding source for such files, let's put an > end to this - give me the details and I'll propose a GR that reaffirms > what's stated already in our founding documen

Re: On cadence and collaboration

Steve McIntyre wrote: > To be fair, I've not been doing a good enough job of talking with the > project as a whole lately. I *have* been talking to a lot of people > inside and outside Debian about things in that time, but a combination > of a very busy day job and a new girlfriend have been keepin

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > >> Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO. > > Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is > checking the copyright file. It is my assumption that this is the part of

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > >>> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in >>> rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me. >> Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps. > > Those

Re: Developer Status

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Can we please wrap part of this thread up by saying that: most of > us---i.e., the participants to this thread---would BE OK with passing > this proposal *with GR* (after the usual needed discussion time), > whereas most of us would NOT BE OK with passing this proposal *

Re: Developer Status

Joerg Jaspert wrote: > We plan to integrate DM more closely into the NM process/system > while keeping the spirit of easing entry into Debian for newcomers. > At the same time we add a separate track for less-technical > contributors. I have to say that I don't like *at all* the way that yo