On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:30 PM Christian Kastner wrote:
> [Well, technically, you could use your own lawyer to perform the due
> diligence and have them submit any necessary changes to the BTS, but I
> think it's safe to assume that that is a theoretical example.]
The OSI started ClearlyDefined,
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1223 (new: 1)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 232 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
On Friday, 27 March 2020 5:42:47 AM AEDT Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> B) there are reasons why people recommend not to use the packaged
> versions of docker.io. No opinion on the others, never touched them.
The are some valid reasons, for example version in "stable" is too old and
the package (and more
Quoting Andrej Shadura (2020-03-26 22:24:41)
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 21:01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> > > are running and under which licenses. They often want to be holier not
> > > only than the Pope, but holier than the whol
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 21:01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> > are running and under which licenses. They often want to be holier not
> > only than the Pope, but holier than the whole population of Poland,
> > Italy and Spanish-sp
Hi,
Quoting Russ Allbery (2020-03-25 03:25:49)
> Michael Lustfield writes:
> > One last thing to consider... NEW reviews are already an intense process.
> > If this package hit NEW /and/ we allowed vendored libs, you could safely
> > expect me to never complete that particular review. I doubt I'm
On 26.03.20 19:57, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> are running and under which licenses.
The only way to know that is by performing your own due diligence.
> They are often bound by regulations with heavy fines for violating
> them, an
Andrej Shadura writes:
> An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> are running and under which licenses. They often want to be holier not
> only than the Pope, but holier than the whole population of Poland,
> Italy and Spanish-speaking countries altogether (I hope I d
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:27:18 PM EDT Kyle Edwards wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 19:57 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> > are running and under which licenses. They often want to be holier
> > not
> > only than the Pope, bu
Sent from my iPhone
On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 19:57 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> An example: commercial users. They need to know *exactly* what they
> are running and under which licenses. They often want to be holier
> not
> only than the Pope, but holier than the whole population of Poland,
> Italy and Spanish-speakin
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 12:40, Christian Kastner wrote:
> There's this expression in German for when one takes a policy too far:
> "Don't try to be holier than the Pope".
>
> But that's how maintaining debian/copyright has come to feel to me. We
> still apply a level of detail that seems out o
On 3/25/20 11:30 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Given that logic even re-compiling using different compiler would not be
> trustworthy. And indeed some people make exactly that argument -- "use our
> tested binary" as one can't be sure if re-compiling introduces any bugs.
Indeed I'd expect it th
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.0
User: debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
Usertags: normative discussion
X-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, ftpmas...@debian.org
Scott has provided a useful summary of what the FTP Team require when it
comes to copyright information, and as another F
Hi,
On 25.03.20 23:39, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>> Software packages like kubernetes, docker, and many of the other "hip
>> tools of the day" are moving way too fast for our release scheme.
> It is worth remembering that Debian is not only a stable release.
> Statically built Golang apps are easy t
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:40:42 AM EDT Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 25.03.20 15:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > The FTP Team review of debian/copyright is about DFSG and upstream license
> > compliance. Most licenses require things like copyright statement
> > preservation in binary distributi
On 25.03.20 15:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The FTP Team review of debian/copyright is about DFSG and upstream license
> compliance. Most licenses require things like copyright statement
> preservation in binary distribution and debian/copyright is how we do that.
> Occasionally, in the proces
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Amit
* Package name: locker
Version : 0.0~git20200313.1210f0e-1
Upstream Author : amit
* URL : www.gitlab.com/amit-yuval/locker
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Go
Description : Container
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Amit
* Package name: locker
Version : 0.0~git20200313.1210f0e-1
Upstream Author : amit
* URL : https://www.gitlab.com/amit-yuval/locker
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: Go
Description : Container
On Thursday, 26 March 2020 7:27:33 PM AEDT Marc Haber wrote:
> I still wouldn't dare pulling testing or unstable packages to
> production systems. It's like a worst-of-all-worlds approach.
Not at all. Packaging is an extra layer of safety. Upstream release may be
outright broken, unusable or bugg
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:56 +1100, Dmitry Smirnov
wrote:
>On Thursday, 26 March 2020 3:45:21 AM AEDT Marc Haber wrote:
>> Software packages like kubernetes, docker, and many of the other "hip
>> tools of the day" are moving way too fast for our release scheme.
>
>It is worth remembering that Debi
21 matches
Mail list logo
