Re: renaming scripts provided by upstream

Quoth Ansgar Burchardt , on 2008-12-12 22:30:24 +0100: > I understand that it should not matter to the user what language is > used to implement a particular script and support omitting > extensions. But what about renaming scripts provided by upstream? > In this case renaming programs to comply w

Re: Release plans? Bits from the RMs?

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Christian Perrier wrote: > (-release is not a discussion list, therefore setting followup to > -devel) > > Dear release managers, > > I feel like being in the dark right now. And I feel like I'm not alone... I agree and would like to know as well? It seems as i

renaming scripts provided by upstream

Hi, I wonder about the advantages and disadvantages of renaming scripts installed in system PATH to not include an extension as ".pl" (Policy 10.4): When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that

Bug#508585: Please provide an easy and official way to get debug symbols for all arch

Package: general Severity: normal hello, In case of bug on rare arch it is quite difficult for the maintener to get debug trace. A generic stuff like http://debug.debian.net/ will help to solve hard diagnose bug like the #508443 and avoid to create -dbg package like in #508582: apt-cache sear

Re: Peer review of copyright files.

Hi, On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:21:50PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Well, licensecheck(1) exists. Maybe many packagers don't know it? Well, licensecheck is a unreplaceable tool, but it cannot be a unique ressource for copyright/license checking, as it suffers from bugs (and/or unknown patterns)

Re: Peer review of copyright files.

Le Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:21:50PM +0100, Daniel Leidert a écrit : > > Well, licensecheck(1) exists. Maybe many packagers don't know it? Hi Daniel, I would rather think that one reason for defective debian/copyright files are the false negatives of licensecheck ;) `grep -ri copyright .' is more

Re: Peer review of copyright files.

Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 00:15 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: > Although it should never happen, sometimes a new package we submit to our > archive managers is rejected because the description of the copyright status > of > its files is either incorrect or lacunar. This is waste of precious

Re: Release plans? Bits from the RMs?

Hi! Christian Perrier schrieb: > So, what's the status now? Can't answer for the release team, but it seems to me, that everyone is waiting for the outcome of GR 2008/vote_003 [1]... But I would appreciate an "official Bits from" mail, too. Links: 1: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003

Bug#508553: ITP: fx2pipe -- Pipe data in or out of an Cypress FX2 device

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Uwe Hermann * Package name: fx2pipe Version : 0.6 Upstream Author : Wolfgang Wieser * URL : http://www.triplespark.net/elec/periph/USB-FX2/software/fx2pipe.html * License : GPLv2 Programming Lang: C Description

Re: Bug#508311: ITP: maven-archiver -- Maven Archiver

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:55 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Carl Fürstenberg dijo [Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:05:43AM +0100]: >> And plexus-archiver is? > > The thingy that is wrapped by maven-archiver. You can find the ITP for plexus-archiver at .