Robert Edmonds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: "Robert S. Edmonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: djbdns
> Version : 1.05
> Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
> * URL : http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html
> * License
Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:24:48AM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>> Supposedly DJB has released all of his code into the public domain. If
>> this is really the case and passes DFSG, I plan to package djbdns
>> assuming Adam McKenna (maintainer of djbdns-installer) doesn'
No response on -mentors in > 24 hours, so I'm looping in -devel.
Cheers,
C.J.
On Nov 29, 2007 8:33 AM, C.J. Adams-Collier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm looking to make some changes to the heimdal debian packages.
> Currently, the heimdal-kdc package contains the following dae
(Dropping -legal from the cc)
On Nov 27, 2007 3:56 PM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new poppler version needs some specific files that contain some
> mappings between Unicode and other encodings, which are in a separate
> package.
That's all that it contains? can't that be r
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Assuming that qmail-1.03.tar.gz contains all the code written by DJB
> that's needed to build qmail, that seems pretty explicit.
My apologies, I briefly confused qmail and djbdns. Good news for the
qmail maintainers, at any rate. I have not yet found an explicit
re-lic
* Christian Perrier [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:55:43 +0100]:
> IIRC (I can't check online right now), it was agreed that a lintian
> check would help a lot *before* the MBF, in order to minimize the size
> of the MBF.
Yeah, such test already exists, but it's an Info:, not a Warning:
(that's what Russ t
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:24:48AM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: "Robert S. Edmonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: djbdns
> Version : 1.05
> Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
> * URL : http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.htm
2007/11/30, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> for a backport you have to add a changelog entry anyway, fixing the
> Homepage field is not that complicated, so I can't see a problem here.
So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
now? If it is so, please say, so we ca
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
>
> Ermm .. ok, but (general question) do we really want to slow-down the
> spreading of some best practice to not hinder backport-ability? After
> al
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 04:03:34PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> Stefano, why your d-d alias says "Debian Devel Italian ML"? ;-)
Because I messed up my headers before sending the mail :-)
> While my packages are not false positive if we consider the version in
> the archive, they're false positiv
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
Ermm .. ok, but (general question) do we really want to slow-down the
spreading of some best practice to not hinder backport-ability? After
all backports is not an official part o
Hi all!
Stefano, why your d-d alias says "Debian Devel Italian ML"? ;-)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:30:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> There should be all the info needed for a wish-list mass-bug filing
> ([1] is a direct link to a dd-list, so that people can check for false
> positives),
>
> [
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
> some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
> vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
>
> There should be all the info needed for a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> My personal position about this, as well as the current policy for the
> packages maintained by the Games Team, is to have simultaneously both
> the new Homepage header as well as the old pseudo-field in the
I really do not see the poi
* Micha Lenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071129 17:27]:
[snip]
>
> But prior to releasing the package I am seeking for feedback here,
> whether that really is a good idea. Is there anything that I missed? Is
> it okay to mess around with other package's group memberships? Any other
> comments?
>
> Pleas
2007/11/30, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
> some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
> vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
>
> There should be all the info needed fo
2007/11/30, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Miriam Ruiz [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:38:30 +0100]:
>
> > So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
> > now? If it is so, please say, so we can move towards there :)
>
> Yes, that'd be the suggestion.
Thanks Dato, we'll revi
Package: wnpp
Owner: "Robert S. Edmonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: djbdns
Version : 1.05
Upstream Author : Daniel J. Bernstein
* URL : http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html
* License : public domain
Programming Lang: C
Description : Re
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:11 +0100]:
> So, what are the cases where a package with the new field would need to
> have also the old pseudo-field to avoid risking that the information is
> not shown?
Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
--
Adeodato Simó
On 30/11/2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> My personal position about this, as well as the current policy for the
> packages maintained by the Games Team, is to have simultaneously both
> the new Homepage header as well as the old pseudo-field in the
> description for a while, until the former is started
On Nov 29, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - create a /etc/inetd.d directory
Wrong approach. Write an update-inetd replacement which can maintain its
own database and can compare it to an existing configuration to know if
the local admin changed something.
> IIRC I did mention something
Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
There should be all the info needed for a wish-list mass-bug filing ([1]
is a direct link to a dd-l
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:03:34 +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> While my packages are not false positive if we consider the version in
> the archive, they're false positive if we consider the Debian VCS
> version.
Same here (both for my "own" packages and for all packages of the
pkg-perl group).
Che
* Miriam Ruiz [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:38:30 +0100]:
> So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
> now? If it is so, please say, so we can move towards there :)
Yes, that'd be the suggestion.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Deb
On 11/30/2007 11:51 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> Are you sure that the complete package is in the public domain?
> Some files are, but not all of them, AFAIK.
There has been some additional discussion on this topic in BTS, as well
as some other places.
http://bugs.debian.org/453680
http://linux.s
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Christian Perrier [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:55:43 +0100]:
>> IIRC (I can't check online right now), it was agreed that a lintian
>> check would help a lot *before* the MBF, in order to minimize the size
>> of the MBF.
> Yeah, such test already exists, but
Hi,
I think I am coming up on a period where I have time again to
devote to Debian, and am beginning to start to triage some policy bugs,
to chime in and help out russ, who has mostly been carrying the torch
the last few months.
Following his example, I have created usecategori
Hi,
At Debconf earlier this year, I gave a talk about the benefits
of creating language for a lintian/linda check whenever we introduce a
new policy rule (when appropriate, and feasible, of course). Not only
do we get a instant Lintian check, but it would also tend to focus the
discu
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
> some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
> vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
>
> There should be all the info needed for a
29 matches
Mail list logo
