Hi,
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2016-05-30 13:08:47)
> * Johannes Schauer , 2016-05-28, 10:04:
> >I was investigating this problem last year and as far as my research
> >went, there is no tracing method in existence which reliably traces
> >system calls in general, file system access or read/write opera
* Johannes Schauer , 2016-05-28, 10:04:
I was investigating this problem last year and as far as my research
went, there is no tracing method in existence which reliably traces
system calls in general, file system access or read/write operations
while keeping track of the acting pid that is 100
Hi,
Quoting Nikolaus Rath (2016-05-29 22:11:58)
> Did you write down your findings in some more detail somewhere?
no, sorry.
> I'd be curious why e.g. a LD_PRELOAD based wrapper would not work for all
> important cases.
For me "all important cases" were "compilation of all debian source package
On May 28 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Paul Wise (2016-05-28 06:45:44)
>> I think it would be interesting to automatically track how each file
>> in a binary package was created and which files they were derived
>> from. Then we could automatically generate proper copyright file
[2016-05-28 13:20] Stefano Zacchiroli
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 02:18:51AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > But seems we do not have tools to check it. Probably, we need some way
> > to mark licenses of whole binary packages. WDYT?
>
> You're correct that we have no way to document the licenses o
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Having such a reliable tracing method would give us the ability to reliably
> infer copyright information as well as generating structured build logs
> (knowing for each line in the build log the process (tree) that created it).
>
> Both o
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 02:18:51AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> But seems we do not have tools to check it. Probably, we need some way
> to mark licenses of whole binary packages. WDYT?
You're correct that we have no way to document the licenses of binaries.
The Policy is currently only concerne
Hi,
Quoting Paul Wise (2016-05-28 06:45:44)
> I think it would be interesting to automatically track how each file
> in a binary package was created and which files they were derived
> from. Then we could automatically generate proper copyright files for
> binary packages. That is a hard project s
Quoting Dmitry Bogatov (2016-05-28 07:47:31)
>
> [add debian-devel back to cc]
>
>> Regarding _declaring_ appropriate DEP5 hints, with machine-readable
>> DEP5 = copyright format you can declare a license in the _header_
>> section to = indicate the effective license caused by "infection" of
>>
[add debian-devel back to cc]
> Regarding _declaring_ appropriate DEP5 hints, with machine-readable DEP5 =
> copyright format you can declare a license in the _header_ section to =
> indicate the effective license caused by "infection" of indivifual parts =
> on the whole of the binary product.
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> Do we have any tools to check for GPL violation? I mean, is it any
> tool to perform rather crude check whether package that contains
> non-copyleft source file depends on binary package, source package of
> which contains GPL file?
non-cop
Hello!
Do we have any tools to check for GPL violation? I mean, is it any
tool to perform rather crude check whether package that contains
non-copyleft source file depends on binary package, source package of
which contains GPL file?
Currently, I am working about some issue with haskell-missingh
12 matches
Mail list logo