Matthias Klose writes:
> I would like to save the effort to upload that. And if somebody wants
> to nmu that, please just append dfsg to the version, not +dfsg. +dfsg
> is annoyingly popular, but prevents updates of something like 2.64.1.
I think you're confusing +dfsg with .dfsg. The latter
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:44:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I would like to save the effort to upload that. And if somebody wants to nmu
> that, please just append dfsg to the version, not +dfsg. +dfsg is annoyingly
> popular, but prevents updates of something like 2.64.1.
$ dpkg --compare-
Am 19.05.2013 20:17, schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Bastien ROUCARIES writes:
>
>> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
>> Sections or Cover Texts:
>
>> autoconf2.64
>
> The documentation has subsequently been relicensed upstream to remove the
> invariant sections re
* David Prévot , 2013-05-19, 18:03:
It’s commonly good practice to (B)CC the actual maintainers too with
such “in advance” notification,
Indeed. You should get a PGP-signed permission from the maintainers (or
from tech-ctte) before filing any bug with severity >= minor.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To
Hi,
Le 19/05/2013 17:32, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit :
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
> wrote:
>> I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
Isn’t the point of mailing to debian-devel to gather more opinion
*before* filling those bugt, or did I miss something obvious
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
wrote:
> I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
>
> This work is based on the new lintian check, then manual checking.
>
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts:
>
autoconf2.
Bastien ROUCARIES writes:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts:
> autoconf2.64
The documentation has subsequently been relicensed upstream to remove the
invariant sections requirement. I'm not sure what our stance is on that,
given
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:36:33 +0200
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts:
>
> autoconf2.64
> binutils
> chromium-browser
> dico
> docbook-defguide
> ecl
> eclipse-linuxtools
>
> I plan ASAP to update the list
I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
This work is based on the new lintian check, then manual checking.
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
autoconf2.64
binutils
chromium-browser
dico
docbook-defguide
ecl
eclipse-linuxtoo
* Jakub Wilk , 2012-12-12, 21:25:
Status update:
[...]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=jw...@debian.org&tag=gfdl
binutils
gdb
gengetopt
texi2html
I haven't wrapped my head around these yet... I'll try again in a few
days, unless somebody beats me to it (hint, hint).
I'
Russ Allbery writes:
> Jakub Wilk writes:
>> First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the
>> documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or
>> moving it into a non-free package is the only option left.
>
> It's worth noting that the FSF (which is the lar
Status update:
adplug
autoconf2.59
bash
cflow
cgdb
chromium-browser
cpio
ecl
gcc-4.7
gcc-h8300-hms
gcc-snapshot
gcj-4.7
gcl
gforth
gmerlin
gsl
gtypist
kbuild
kdesdk
libbinio
muse-el
readline6
source-highlight
tar
vcdimager
xemacs21-packages
I filed bugs against these:
http://bugs.debian.org/cg
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Serafeim Zanikolas , 2012-12-12, 10:30:
>> If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
>> source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
>> programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the
>> main pack
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Serafeim Zanikolas , 2012-12-12, 10:30:
>
>> If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
>> source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
>> programs) and another for non-free (shipping docu
* Serafeim Zanikolas , 2012-12-12, 10:30:
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the
main package suggesting the non-free one
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
> Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[..]
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic source
package in two different source packages, one for main
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:04:22AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Jakub Wilk , 2012-12-01, 12:10:
> >Any volunteers to file bugs?
>
> I'll file them myself.
Please collect them together with a usertag to help others who
may wish to get involved.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@l
* Jakub Wilk , 2012-12-01, 12:10:
Any volunteers to file bugs?
I'll file them myself.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121211000422.
On 12/02/2012 05:16 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> Yes, this _is_ exactly what we need.
>
> "1. Debian will remain 100% free" [1]
>
> And we better not release until licensing problems in main are resolved.
We all agree to the social contract and the DFSG, and you
know it. There's absolutely no nee
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
> Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[...]
> groff
I was quite careful to ensure that this was not a problem. Per groff's
"LICENSES" file, all files that are part of groff a
On 02/12/2012 05:16, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> On 1 December 2012 15:42, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
>>> Sections or Cover Texts:
>>>
>>> bash
>>> binutils
>>> tar
>>>
>>> As p
Am 01.12.2012 13:20, schrieb Jakub Wilk:
> * Jakub Wilk , 2012-12-01, 12:10:
>> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
>> Sections or Cover Texts:
>
> To clarify: this is a list of _source_ packages.
your level of detail is appreciated.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 1 December 2012 15:42, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
>> Sections or Cover Texts:
>>
>> bash
>> binutils
>> tar
>>
>> As per GR 2006-001 such works are not suitable for main:
>> ht
On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts:
>
> bash
> binutils
> tar
>
> As per GR 2006-001 such works are not suitable for main:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
>
> Any volunteers to file
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
> Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[..]
> As per GR 2006-001 such works are not suitable for main:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
Would you mind sharing the scr
* Jakub Wilk , 2012-12-01, 12:10:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
To clarify: this is a list of _source_ packages.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
adplug
autoconf2.59
bash
binutils
cflow
cgdb
chromium-browser
cpio
ecl
gcc-4.7
gcc-h8300-hms
gcc-snapshot
gcj-4.7
gcl
gdb
gengetopt
gforth
gmerlin
groff
gsl
gtypist
kbuild
kdesdk
libbinio
mathgl
muse
27 matches
Mail list logo
