Hello everybody,
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> > upstream projects would use?
If I remember well, one of the reason for the divergence was that we
really wanted a system describing licens
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Colin Cogle
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: aprs-weather-submit
Version : 1.7.1
Upstream Contact: Colin Cogle
* URL : https://github.com/rhymeswithmogul/aprs-weather-submit
* License : Affero
Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear Debian developpers,
>
> I ma looking for a wrapper around the various compressions programs
> (gzip, bzip2, xz, zstd, etc.)
> that would provide the same interface as zcat but would automatically
> pick the right decompressor.
>
> I could easily write one but it probabl
Dear Debian developpers,
I ma looking for a wrapper around the various compressions programs
(gzip, bzip2, xz, zstd, etc.)
that would provide the same interface as zcat but would automatically
pick the right decompressor.
I could easily write one but it probably already exists.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
* László Böszörményi (GCS) [240829 20:55]:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree. Do you want to upload a new src:fuse package dropping
> > the fuse binary package?
> > fuse3 already Provides: fuse, so that should be fine.
> The question is, how many depe
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hefee
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org,
he...@debian.org
Control: block -1 with 1081171
* Package name: kweather
Version : 24.8.0
Upstream Contact: KDE Community
* URL : https://invent
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Hefee
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org,
he...@debian.org
* Package name: kweathercore
Version : 24.08.0
Upstream Contact: KDE Community
* URL : https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kweather
Hi all,
Sorry for the delayed answer. I've been busy at many fronts.
And thanks so much to Lukas for friendly taking care of this topic.
El 21/08/24 a las 10:30, Lukas Märdian escribió:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 20.08.24 16:25, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > Hi Lukas,
> > CCing d-devel,
>
> This email was
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-08 19:29:18)
> licensecheck even if with "--shortname-scheme spdx,debian" seems show
> some debian name where can show spdx instead, with only spdx is probably
> good but i haven't tested it enough
Interesting. Please file bugreports, one issue in detail in each
b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bdale Garbee
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: openrocket
Version : 23.09
URL : https://openrocket.info
License : GPLv3+
Programming Lang: Java
Description : Model Rocket Simulator
Op
Il 08/09/2024 07:38, Jonas Smedegaard ha scritto:
[CC'ing Fabio as they seemingly missed my earlier list-only reply]
Quoting Fabio Fantoni (2024-09-07 23:57:35)
Il 07/09/2024 22:56, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Le samedi 7 septembre 2024, 21:43:35 CEST Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
So I wonder, is
Il 08/09/2024 12:25, Aurélien COUDERC ha scritto:
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations for
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 at 09:49:39 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Is it really that valuable for us to have a delta here compared to what
> upstream projects would use?
IMO: no. If (some) upstream projects are now taking copyright/license
tracking in general (and machine-readable copyright/license spe
Le 8 septembre 2024 09:38:00 GMT+02:00, Andrea Pappacoda
a écrit :
>Hi Aurélien,
>
>On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
>> Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
>> License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
>> For what I’ve seen
Jonas Smedegaard:
[...]
DEP5 already encourages (but does not require) use of SPDX shortnames,
except where Debian and SPDX disagree on sensible naming.
See https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#spdx
and the historical notes at
https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/Copy
Hi Aurélien,
On Sat Sep 7, 2024 at 10:56 PM CEST, Aurélien COUDERC wrote:
Our spec [2] already defines an equivalence rule between License-X and
License-X.0 declarations for SPDX compatibility.
For what I’ve seen on the quite vast and diverse KDE source corpus
we’d only need 2 additional equiva
16 matches
Mail list logo
