On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:47 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
> to initi
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 16:24 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> > Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> > maintain a package. It is not much work to list them.
>
> Bullshit. The last time FTP masters R
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:16:31AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> It seems to me that it would be a lot less effort to fix this by removing
>> file-rc in Debian, which has only a handful (137) of popcon reports. Even
>> if we take into consideration that popcon isn't a good source of absolute
>> numb
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:00:00 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
> > contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in
> > the (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists
> > them either in a file head
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
> General resolutions are a m
Neil Williams writes:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:03:10 +1100
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > * Display of the copyright notices, license grant and terms (in
> > e.g. ‘aptitude’) when deciding whether or not to install a
> > package.
>
> I don't see how that is a real gain, except for packages in
> non
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having
> already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called.
>
It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so.
Neil
--
hermanr_: I never studied german
I
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:13:54PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de):
>
> > Package: a2ps
> > - various encodings (all the Latins and others),
> > - various fonts (automatic font down loading),
> > - various medias,
> > ^^ (two spaces)
> Please note tha
Bill Allombert writes:
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general
> resolutions.
This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are
deprived. It does not discriminate and treats all DDs equally
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:53:02 +0100
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
> disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
Umm, so vote agains
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers.
> The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers.
>
Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers.
Neil
--
< vorlon>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:03:10 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> * Display of the copyright notices, license grant and terms (in e.g.
> ‘aptitude’) when deciding whether or not to install a package.
I don't see how that is a real gain, except for packages in non-free.
Are we looking for a problem to ju
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> > succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> > and it's front-ends, it seems re
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: wordpress-theme-inove
Version: 1.2.3
Upstream Author: mg12
URL: http://www.neoease.com/themes/
License: Creative Commons
Description: WordPress theme "iNove"
A nice WordPr
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to
disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions.
General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle
conflicts t
Peter Palfrader writes:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > Listing the licences (not necessarily copyright holders) in a
> > machine readable format would allow lintian checks to be
> > developed, and maybe even automatic license compatibility checks
> > to be performed.
>
> The wa
Arthur de Jong writes:
> I have been reading this discussion a bit and I've been wondering
> what use-case you actually have for machine-readable
> debian/copyright files.
Several off the top of my head:
* Automated generation of ‘license::foo’ tags for the package,
allowing users to select o
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 20:11 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
> > Did you mean "copyright" here? No one is disputing the need to document
> > the license of every file that goes into forming the contents of the
> > binary package.
>
> No, I meant license.
>
> It seems people ARE disputing that l
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:06:57 +0100
Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> > Could anyone to tell me how to solve below this svnbuildstat issue?
> > http://svnbuildstat.debian.net/packages/list/25
> Hi,
>
> Svnbuildstat is unmaintained for a while now. buildstat.d.n is the futur.
> Everybody will be able to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Moritz Muehlenhoff
* Package name: drascula
Upstream Author : Alcachofa Soft S.L.
Programming Lang: N/A
Description : point and click adventure
"Drascula - The Vampire Strikes Back" is a Spanish point-and-click
adventure from the 90ies, which
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Jim wrote:
Hi. I took the suggestion of one of the replies to your original post
and read about debian pure blends, and at first I thought demudi was a
pure blend;
At the time of writing the DeMuDi project *intended* to become 100%
Debian - but this intend was not fullfill
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
>>> No. It is not up to the Debian maintainer to decide that some
>>> contributor has written enough of the code to also be mentioned in the
>>> (C) lines in a particular file. But as soon as upstream lists them
>>> either in a file header or the AUTHORS file the Debian maint
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:08:54PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> Am I the cat's mother? I'm not sure which is more rude, replying to emails
> faster than other people or criticising someone's behaviour in a public forum.
> If you think I reply to emails too fast, please do so in private in the
> fut
Neil Williams wrote:
>
> If large numbers of package descriptions are to change collectively,
> it's best to make that one change with two aims rather than two separate
> changes. Less work for everyone involved.
But Andreas' RFC affects the source packages, yours only affects the
infrastructure
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:55:10PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> He is monopolizing the discussion. He should let some time pass between
> replies to take into account the opinions of others. Furthermore, by
> replying too fast he is actively making the discussion non-followable by
> many persons
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > [21 times]
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> > may I suggest you stop doing that?
>
> What
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> [21 times]
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 20:19:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> may I suggest you stop doing that?
What's wrong with properly replying without breaking threads? Ye
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:53:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:55:47 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:58:56 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:02:51 +, Noah Slater wrote:
On S
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:34PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> I can understand there may be benefits of a parsable format but I don't
> directly see enough gain. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of
> (perceived) cost involved (maintainer work).
Implicit in your email is the idea that
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:02:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> we can just copy that notice, ignoring the fact that ISC doesn't do
> copyright assignment and the actual copyrights are held by way more
> different people than are explicitly mentioned there. I don't think
> there's any utility in d
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:55:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think part of the problem right now is that people aren't sure what to
> expect and are feeling like this review is somewhat unpredictable. This
> is what I'm hoping to be able to help with by revising the Policy section.
> If we ca
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:29:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Noah Slater writes:
>
> > Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> > each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> > checking the package for licensing problems.
>
> Did you m
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 12:11 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> Firmly in my mind is the cost/benefit of this extra effort. If we
> succeed in integrating debian/copyright checks into lintian, or dpkg
> and it's front-ends, it seems reasonable to imagine that this effort
> would be a good trade-off.
I hav
I have written a simple LMTP server in C, it will be released under the GPL V3
license.
Description: LMTP server that delivers mail via procmail, maildrop, or deliver
This server accepts mail via the LMTP protocol and delivers it locally
by executing an external program. For efficiency it does
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:10:46PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > A license check must, by definition, involve each file in the package.
> >
> > As re-quoted from the quote you previously quoted:
> >
> > "I don't see why it should be considered that much extra effort
> > documenting
> > the pr
Neil Williams writes:
> We also need clarity on why debian/copyright should have a higher level
> of scrutiny than the upstream itself. Debian does not hold copyright on
> most upstream source packages, why do we second-guess upstream teams?
It's worth noting here that most upstreams distribute
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> Also, keep in mind what Mark wrote elsewhere. He asked the DPL to let
> SPI get us some lawyers input on the question. Thats probably the best
> course.
Yes. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, and I think we should hold any
resolution of this discussion for the results
Grammostola Rosea,
Hi. I took the suggestion of one of the replies to your original post
and read about debian pure blends, and at first I thought demudi was a
pure blend; it's listed as one of the projects but is not actually a
pure blend, which I guess means they might have updated apps and
spec
Noah Slater writes:
> Having said that, I am thinking that fully documenting the license of
> each file provides a handy way to ensure that developers are thoroughly
> checking the package for licensing problems.
Did you mean "copyright" here? No one is disputing the need to document
the licens
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:16:47PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:06:57 +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
>
> > Svnbuildstat is unmaintained for a while now. buildstat.d.n is the futur.
> > Everybody will be able to have its own buildbot and the report will be
> > [..] But I nee
Jonas Meurer (21/03/2009):
> Joerg, please don't you see the consequences of your harsh discussion
> style?
You can cross out “discussion” here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:06:57 +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> Svnbuildstat is unmaintained for a while now. buildstat.d.n is the futur.
> Everybody will be able to have its own buildbot and the report will be
> [..] But I need to finish the release for the moment. Help welcome! :)
Is the code ava
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:47:37PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone to tell me how to solve below this svnbuildstat issue?
> http://svnbuildstat.debian.net/packages/list/25
Hi,
Svnbuildstat is unmaintained for a while now. buildstat.d.n is the futur.
Everybody will be able to
On 2009-03-22, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:31:58AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 02:58 +, Noah Slater a écrit :
>> > Again, while the documentation of individual licenses may not be policy,
>> > it is
>> > certainly policy for each package to
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I could see an argument that putting the contents of NOTICE into
> debian/copyright satisfies the second possibility -- "within the ...
> documentation, if provided along with the Derivative works" -- but I think
> just installing the
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> maintain a package.
Is this you volunteering to maintain X?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
Florian Weimer writes:
> The file NOTICE contains this hint:
>
> | This product includes software developed at
> | The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> I'm wondering if this should be reflected in the copyright file (and
> if the NOTICE file should be installed in the bina
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stefanos Harhalakis
* Package name: fsprotect
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Stefanos Harhalakis
* URL : http://www.v13.gr/ (not available yet)
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Shell
Description : Make files
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> The way this process should work is that you (or somebody) writes those
> tools.
>
> Then, if DDs see that those tools are useful they will convert their
> debian/copyright files to take advantage of those tools all by
> themselves.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:13:20PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps this is where we're not quite seeing eye-to-eye. I know that
> machine readable copyright files would allow lintian checks. But what
> would those checks be, and what would be the point of them?
I believe there has been so di
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:35:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Files: share/www/script/json.js
> License: PD
> In the public domain.
>
> This file does not exist.
Yes, it seems the file is:
share/www/script/jso2.js
> The file NOTICE contains this hint:
>
> | This product includes software
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin]
In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debi
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:47:39PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
> > > Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
> > > one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
> > > say 'yes, I
Hello!
A new project called TigerVNC (http://tigervnc.org) has forked TightVNC.
Announcement here ("Open Letter: Leaving TightVNC, Founding TigerVNC"):
http://www.realvnc.com/pipermail/vnc-list/2009-February/059615.html
Fedora changed their default VNC from TightVNC to TigerVNC for upcoming Fedo
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:59:06PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> With respect to #494001, I would like to determine the minimum
> version of the linux kernel we will
>
> a) support and
> b) be physically capable of running
>
> for Squeeze.
>
> It has been asserted that squeeze w
Le Sunday 22 March 2009 14:45:18 Noah Slater, vous avez écrit :
> > Could you provide a use case or two to help clarify things? The main
> > one I see is for an end user to look at a packages copyright file and
> > say 'yes, I can use it for $foo', which is a case that's detracted from
> > in the p
* Noah Slater:
> If you're telling me that the FTP masters would be happy with blanket license
> statements for a package, what is stopping you from using the existing format
> to
> say something along the lines of:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: Copyright 2008, Damien Katz
>Copyright 2008, J
Le Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:45:27AM +0100, Romain Beauxis a écrit :
>
> There was at some point a discussion about a collaborative copyright
> proofread.
> I think this would be a great improvement in our workflow. What was the
> conclusion of this proposal ?
Hi Romain,
the proposal is here: ht
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
> (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
> [...]
> > PROPOSAL START
> >
> > General Resolutions are an im
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> > seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> > use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
> >
> > Could you provide a use case or
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:45:18PM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> > seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> > use, while not regar
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:54:49AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Then reconsider the remark. The proposed format is more work for many
> overworked maintainers, it presents no clear gain for those maintainers,
> it overly complicates the file and file handling. There is no point
> arguing about the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:42:29AM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage yet Currently, this
> seems to have been designed to provide interfaces for future tools to
> use, while not regarding whether or not people want those tools.
>
> Could you provide a
tags 493951 +help
thanks
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 07:32, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Package: libpkg-guide
> Version: 0.0.20070413
> Severity: serious
>
> The libpkg-guide that has been packaged and is now in the archive gives
> recommendations regarding -dev package naming which are not at all
> repre
Hi,
Could anyone to tell me how to solve below this svnbuildstat issue?
http://svnbuildstat.debian.net/packages/list/25
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:03:49 +0900
> From: Hideki Yamane
> To: pkg-fonts-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Subject: svnbuildstat, "Need build
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment:
AMENDMENT START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
to i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de>
(gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote:
[...]
> PROPOSAL START
>
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the D
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:16:10 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
> > reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
> > document every single copyrig
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:56:06 +0100
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> First, let me apologize for my last mail in this thread, it had been a
> little too rude/harsh/direct. My fault, sorry. (We all should calm down,
> flaming won't help)
/me calms down too.
> On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > J
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:35:02AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> IMHO it is about not getting hung up on the process but considering the
> reasoning behind the process. AFAICT, there is no good reason to
> document every single copyright holder but there are very good reasons
> to document every ap
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:45:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Given that many people have already said that it is, perhaps this is the
> point where you should just accept that they're not lying to you and
> instead you're suffering from a failure of imagination?
>
> I know from personal experien
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:42:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Could you explain to me how the lack of those two things is a possible
> DFSG problem? I assume that this is based on the first, but that seems
> like quite a stretch to me. The same assurance, for what good there is in
> it, could b
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:13:54PM +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> > > whether that's useful docu
First, let me apologize for my last mail in this thread, it had been a
little too rude/harsh/direct. My fault, sorry. (We all should calm down,
flaming won't help)
On 11696 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>> We require, and have seen nothing to convince us otherwise, that
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:47:04 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> > maintain a package. It is not much work to list them. (It might be a lot
> > of work using the "new
Hi,
On Sonntag, 22. März 2009, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> What I did the other day was to download the files from the package web
> page. For lvm2 it's http://snapshot.debian.net/package/lvm2
Well, that works, but there are no snapshots after mid 2008 available... :(
regards,
Holg
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 02:47:04AM +, Noah Slater wrote:
> This has clear advantages for being able to post-process, check, search, and
> navigate copyright information using whatever tools the community decides
> would
> be profitable.
>
I'm not quite clear as to why this is an advantage ye
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:53:51 +
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:42:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why do they have to? I know, the ftp team made it up. But there
> > is no reason in policy or in copyright law for such copying to
> > occur. But it would be nic
Lionel Elie Mamane writes:
> The very long lengths seem to come mostly from lists of CTAN
> packages in a Debian package; I find these useful, as I can
> "apt-cache search CTAN_package" to find it in Debian.
For that purpose, it would seem ‘apt-file’ can do the job better,
obviating the need for
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:27:51 +0900, Masayuki Hatta wrote:
>> the abiword package, maintained by mhatta and joshk, could definitely
>> use some more care. The version that is in Debian was released back in
>> Nov 2006 [1], and it currently includes a grave bug that makes the
>> package nearly unusa
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:26:18AM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>I am trying to get ridge on the problem with lvm2. Therefore I have to
>get some old packages from snapshot.debian.net. Unfortunately it seems
>to be broken for some time now. I tried to contact the maintainer
>(u...@debian.org) but got
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
I am trying to get ridge on the problem with lvm2. Therefore I have to
get some old packages from snapshot.debian.net. Unfortunately it seems
to be broken for some time now. I tried to contact the maintainer
(u...@debian.org) but got no answe
* Wouter Verhelst:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Bernd Zeimetz:
>> > Being able to rename an interface without messing with udev is a
>> > feature, not a bug.
>>
>> I think you can't rename most interfaces after the boot process
>> anyway. Or has the kern
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/typesetting.html
The very long lengths seem to come mostly from lists of CTAN packages
in a Debian package; I find these useful, as I can "apt-cache search
CTAN_package" to find it in Debian.
Yes, I'm
* Steve Langasek , 2009-03-21, 17:07:
I know some package maintainers handle this by ignoring the existence
of file-rc and just removing symlinks directly in /etc/rcX.d/. As
long as file-rc exist and is supposed in Debian, I believe it is a bad
idea. :(
It seems to me that it would be a lot le
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:52:10PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I agree that some descriptions are definitely to long. I wonder who
> should really read some descriptions to the end. Bad examples can
> be viewn here:
>http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/typesetting.html
The very lon
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 03:34 +, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:07:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > NEW rejections are even stronger than an RC bug. Apart from questions of
> > whether that's useful documentation for users, I have a hard time seeing
> > either of your reasons
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:34:17PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > (For example, up until I
> > started experimenting with the new copyright file format, I never
> > documented the license or copyright information for any of the
> > Autotools-generated files, and I never heard a peep of concern a
Quoting Andreas Tille (til...@rki.de):
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
>> Please note that debian-l10n-english suggests using the enumeration
>> style you mention for a2ps, when we're reviewing package
>> descriptions...
>
> BTW, once you answered in this thread: Shouldn't we make
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:49:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Meurer writes:
> > On 21/03/2009 Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> >>> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> >>> maintain a package. It
90 matches
Mail list logo
