Re: jquery debate with upstream

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:34:47PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > You may think a line is somewhere, but the DFSG is interpreted by the > ftp-masters, so the question isn't what paultag or ian says, but what > the ftp-masters say :) I don't accept that. The interpretation must come from a conc

Re: jquery debate with upstream

On 03/12/2014 05:16 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG. >> >> Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one. >> >> >> So thi

Bug#741387: ITP: python-dugong -- HTTP 1.1 client module for Python supporting async io, pipelining and Expect: continue

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Nikolaus Rath * Package name: python-dugong Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Nikolaus Rath * URL : https://bitbucket.org/nikratio/python-dugong * License : PSF (Python Software Foundation License) Programming Lang: Pyth

Bug#741383: ITP: libthreads-lite-perl -- threads::lite provides actor model threading for Perl

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Peter Roberts * Package name: libthreads-lite-perl Version : 0.033 Upstream Author : Leon Timmermans * URL : https://metacpan.org/release/threads-lite * License : GPL, Artistic Programming Lang: Perl, C Description

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Sune Vuorela writes: > If I had to disregard the DFSG in some cases, I'd rather see rfc files > in our files than sourceless javascripts. If they're in the source packages but not installed, I believe this is an equivalent case, yes. And it would certainly make some packages easier to manage (o

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Le Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > We should stop this makework and get on with doing something useful. > > Thanks for providing me with my 'word of the day' (makework) which seems > to me to embod

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2014, 19:02 + schrieb Ian Jackson: > I think that if we want a more convenient and reliable way to avoid > them being used during the build, we should have a way to make > dpkg-source remove the files from the tree as it unpacks the source. debian/clean is sufficien

Re: jquery debate with upstream

On 2014-03-11, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG. > > Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one. > > > So this comes down to where the line is, like I said. "As

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Next time, dput-ng checks for this :) Cheers, Paul On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make this > mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely perfect > attention. My apologies ... > > Anyway, while t

Re: jquery debate with upstream

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > We should stop this makework and get on with doing something useful. Thanks for providing me with my 'word of the day' (makework) which seems to me to embody a growing collection of activities in Debian in modern times. -- To UNSUBS

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie writes: > On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote: >> "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make this >> mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely perfect >> attention. My apologies ... > On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to >

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Thomas Goirand writes ("Re: jquery debate with upstream"): > In one of my package, I had openssl.dll in the source tarball (it was of > course removed later on). > > Would you consider it ok as well to have it in a source package, as long > as it's not used during the build? And what about a windo

Re: jquery debate with upstream

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote: > Repackaging these tarballs for this reason is utterly pointless. > No-one has been able to explain what the benefit is, to anyone. All we > get when we challenge it is, I'm sad to say, vague and abstract > responses like this one. The point of repacking th

Re: jquery debate with upstream

[not ftpteam] On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 06:09:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't think this is a significant breach of the DFSG. Ah, but you do acknowledge this *is* a breach, even if a small one. So this comes down to where the line is, like I said. You may think a line is somewhere, but

Bug#741367: ITP: libowasp-antisamy-java -- OWASP AntiSamy

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Matthew Vernon Package name: libowasp-antisamy-java Version : 1.5.3 Upstream Author : Arshan Dabirsiaghi URL : https://code.google.com/p/owaspantisamy/ License : BSD Programming Lang: Java Description : OWA

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: jquery debate with upstream"): > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:16:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > You have conspicuously failed to answer Jonas's question. What > > objective does removing these files and repacking the tarballs serve ? > > We distribute source. The q

Bug#741205: marked as done (general: the GUI freeze regularly, you can not move the mouse or enter a key)

Your message dated Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:36:00 +0100 with message-id <201403111636.02939.hol...@layer-acht.org> and subject line Re: Bug#741205: general: the GUI freeze regularly, you can not move the mouse or enter a key has caused the Debian Bug report #741205, regarding general: the GUI freeze re

Re: jquery debate with upstream

On 03/11/2014 11:16 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Debian have a certain definition of Freedoms [...] > Whose freedom is impaired, and in what way, by the presence of these > useless but ignored files in the tarball ? In one of my package, I had openssl.dll in the source tarball (it was of course remov

Re: jquery debate with upstream

[ not as ftpteam -- man, I'm saying this a lot lately ] On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:16:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > You have conspicuously failed to answer Jonas's question. What > objective does removing these files and repacking the tarballs serve ? We distribute source. The question is, do

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]"): > On the sbuild side: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529281 > > tl;dr: extensive discussion of why this mistake is easy to make and > why sbuild can't trivially fix it; Raphael Her

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: jquery debate with upstream"): > Quoting Steve M. Robbins (2014-03-11 07:11:36) > > I can understand that it is nicer if upstream can be persuaded to > > clean things up and not do either of the above. I also realize that > > some folks may prefer to re-pack a tarba

Re: Bits from the Security Team

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Bits from the Security Team"): > I was trying to say that there is no policy currently in place to ensure > that skip-upgrades actually work, and at least one maintainer has > already started to cleanup pre-wheezy stuff from his packages [0]. > People "encouragi

Re: Bits from the Security Team

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: Bits from the Security Team"): > On the other hand, going directly from oldoldstable to stable pulls in > 4 years of changes, and I think that's likely to result in having to > keep too many workarounds and too much cruft for too long, and having > to hold back progress

Bug#741345: ITP: mathematical-components -- Mathematical Components library for the Coq proof system

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Enrico Tassi * Package name: mathematical-components Version : 1.4.0 Upstream Author : Mathematical Components team * URL : http://www.msr-inria.fr/projects/mathematical-components/ * License : BSD Programming Lang: Co

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote: > "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make > this mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely > perfect attention. My apologies ... On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:50:46AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Anyway, while this was unintentional, I don't think it's actually > dreadful. testing has 2.00-22, which is reasonably solid, and I wanted > to make sure wheezy ships with at least GRUB 2.02 anyway, Cyril points out that I mean jessi

Re: jquery debate with upstrea

Quoting Joachim Breitner (2014-03-11 11:29:31) > Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2014, 11:22 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-03-11 03:32:54) > > > Paul Wise writes: > > > > > >> I'd suggest an acceptable workaround is to include the source in the > > >> debian.tar.gz/diff.gz

[cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

"Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make this mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely perfect attention. My apologies ... Anyway, while this was unintentional, I don't think it's actually dreadful. testing has 2.00-22, which is reasonably solid, and I want

Re: jquery debate with upstrea

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2014, 11:22 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-03-11 03:32:54) > > Paul Wise writes: > > > >> I'd suggest an acceptable workaround is to include the source in the > >> debian.tar.gz/diff.gz or to repack the upstream tarball, probably the > >>

Re: jquery debate with upstrea

Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-03-11 03:32:54) > Paul Wise writes: > >> I'd suggest an acceptable workaround is to include the source in the >> debian.tar.gz/diff.gz or to repack the upstream tarball, probably the >> latter since jQuery is usually an embedded code copy. > >> https://wiki.debian.org/

Re: jquery debate with upstream

Quoting Steve M. Robbins (2014-03-11 07:11:36) > On March 11, 2014 10:50:10 AM Paul Wise wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >>> I'd love to see clarification of the ftp-team's position on >>> obfuscated files in source packages, preferably in an official >>> location for

Re: jquery debate with upstrea

Hi. Joachim Breitner writes: > Hi, > > I keep discussing the same issues caused by minified JS files (mostly > JQuery) in their source tarballs over and over. Could maybe those who > care deeply about this write a concise wiki page with all that upstream > needs to know about our expectations, s

Re: Bits from the Security Team

Le lundi, 10 mars 2014, 22.00:09 Christoph Biedl a écrit : > > The problem is that there is no policy in place to make us support > > oldstable-to-testing upgrades. If there's interest, that'd need to > > be decided with a more firm policy than "encourage maintainers". > > Would you have preferred

Re: jquery debate with upstrea

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.03.2014, 10:34 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > nor mess with tarball repackaging (which I consider ugly, a cludge, and > > to be avoided if possible) > > Recent versions of uscan can automatically repack upstream tarb