Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond a écrit :
>
> This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
> have conflicting files with yours that you should remove it. Few ideas:
> * simply use Conflict: pscan
Hi all,
I am a bit shocked that so many think
Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:25:11PM +0200, Uwe Hermann a écrit :
>
> Ack. Sorry for not answering earlier, but as the current maintainer of
> pscan I have no intentions to orphan or remove it.
Dear Uwe,
Thanks for the answer to the ping.
What do we do for the binary conflict ?
The reason I ask
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-cvxopt
Version : 0.8.2
Upstream Author : Joachim Dahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Lieven Vandenberghe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://abel.ee.ucla.edu/cvxopt
* License
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frans Pop wrote:
> However, I'm not completely sure if that explanation actually matches what
> I was seeing in practice and have not tried only using 'found' recently
> (I've been using both reopen and found, just to be sure...).
Heh. The explanation is the way it's *suppos
On Saturday 30 June 2007 19:06, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> > greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> > versions to be removed ('cause th
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> > greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> > versions to be removed ('cause they're equal
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 18:43:36 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
> > discussion about its removal.
>
> I think it would be grossly rude to attempt to orphan a package
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1) found foobug fooversion; command to the BTS. If this version is
> greater or equal to any other fixed version, or causes all fixed
> versions to be removed ('cause they're equal to the found version),
> the bug is reopened as well.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
> > discussion about its removal.
> This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
> have conflicting files with your
Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
> discussion about its removal.
This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
have conflicting files with yours that you should remove it. Few ideas:
* simply use Conflict: pscan
*
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > My understanding is that Debian declares a work non-free if a holder
> > of a software idea patent is *actively enforcing* a patent that covers
> > the work, such that Debian cannot distrigute the work as free
> > software.
>
> Is there a known case
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned,
> nondeprecated way to revert the effects of a versioned message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are three reasonable ways, depending on the effect you want to
have:
1) found foobug fooversion; co
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: liblocale-hebrew-perl
Version : 1.04
Upstream Author : Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~autrijus/Locale-Hebrew-1.04/
* License : Artistic Li
* Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-30 15:36]:
> On Friday 29 June 2007 22:48, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > The myspell-pt-br package exists already in Debian but is generated from
> > the br.ispell pacakge, which is also maintained by me. The dictionary used
> > in br.ispell is large
On Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 18:43:36 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
> discussion about its removal.
I think it would be grossly rude to attempt to orphan a package
which you do not maintain which has no bugs against it. (Except
the n
On Friday 29 June 2007 22:48, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> The myspell-pt-br package exists already in Debian but is generated from
> the br.ispell pacakge, which is also maintained by me. The dictionary used
> in br.ispell is largely outdated as regards the dictionary distributed by
> the BrOffice
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - anything I have to take care for regarding the GPLv3? What was the
> stance of debian-legal?
It would be nice if we could get an annotated copy of the GPLv3,
explaining the legalese. I read through it in detail this morning,
but an explanation
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: fact++
Version : 1.1.7
Upstream Author : Dmitry Tsarkov
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/factplusplus/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C, C++, Java
Description
Hi all!
Ok, GPLv3 is out. Karl Berry the upstream of texinfo switched to GPLv3.
No I am planning to upload a new texinfo package but have the following
questions:
- anything I have to take care for regarding the GPLv3? What was the
stance of debian-legal?
- GPLv3 is AFAIS not contained in /usr/
Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:13:45PM +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
>
> Now to the core:
>
> A package cons that ships /usr/bin/cons and a package pscan that ships
> /usr/bin/pscan makes sense and these binaries and project names exist for a
> long time. Why do you think a rename of the files /usr/bin/
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:56:56AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>> So my question remains: what's the officially sanctioned, nondeprecated way
>> to
>> revert the effects of a versioned message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> reopen (I think that also clears the fixed list, don't tried it though,
> so
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:48:53PM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> I guess it does. But I thought reopen was deprecated since the versioning
> stuff was added to the BTS. However, the "notfixed" command issued earlier
> didn't completely remove the "done" status from the bug... (And I thought
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear debian-devel,
>
> I am maintaining a package that shares binary names with three others,
> cons, hsffig and pscan. I contacted their developpers in private,
> via debian-devel, and then through the BTS. I got an answer from the
> maintainer of cons, but the maintainers
Dear debian-devel,
I am maintaining a package that shares binary names with three others,
cons, hsffig and pscan. I contacted their developpers in private,
via debian-devel, and then through the BTS. I got an answer from the
maintainer of cons, but the maintainers of hsffig and pscan, although
act
> My understanding is that Debian declares a work non-free if a holder
> of a software idea patent is *actively enforcing* a patent that covers
> the work, such that Debian cannot distrigute the work as free
> software.
Is there a known case where a holder actively enforces a patent that covers
M
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:41:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
>> I've been pondering on what's the cleanest way to fix it for some time,
>> and I tend to agree with Steve about using the make options to test
>> fo
26 matches
Mail list logo
