On 21/09/2010 02:00, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
> 2010/9/21 Jérémy Lal :
I also contacted debian-hams to see if they'd mind changing this binary
name,
and the answer is clearly no [1].
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2010/08/msg00031.html
i posted a reply yesterday
Package: wnpp
Owner: Dominique Dumont
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libdist-zilla-plugins-cjm-perl
Version : 3.01
Upstream Author : Christopher J. Madsen
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/
Package: wnpp
Owner: Dominique Dumont
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libdist-zilla-plugin-prepender-perl
Version : 1.101590
Upstream Author : Jerome Quelin
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist
Carl Fürstenberg writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name"):
> Policy only states "The maintainers should report this to the
> debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
> program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached,
> both programs mu
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:48:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Carl Fürstenberg writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
> name"):
> > Policy only states "The maintainers should report this to the
> > debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
> > program wi
Peter Grasch writes:
>> Peter, have you prepared a source *.deb yet? It would be interesting to
>> look at the code to understand how critical the non-free component is.
> Sure. There are complete packages in the Ubuntu ppa:
> https://launchpad.net/~grasch-simon-listens/+archive/simon/
The copy
Hi!
One conclusion from earlier discussions about the Julius license on
debian-legal was that it was non-free:
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-le...@lists.debian.org/msg40898.html
The thread isn't completely clear to me what the exact problem is
though...
As far as I can work out the ambig
On 21/09/2010 14:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Carl Fürstenberg writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable
> name"):
>> Policy only states "The maintainers should report this to the
>> debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
>> program will have to be renamed. If
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Angel Abad
* Package name: liblist-utilsby-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Paul Evans
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~pevans/List-UtilsBy-0.06/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1
Programming Lang: Perl
Description
Mehdi Dogguy writes ("Re: Bug#597571: nodejs: non common executable name"):
> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, nodejs can
> stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both packages provide the
> same binary (same filename), which is not the case here.
Sorry, whe
Note that i tried to warn upstream nodejs several months ago, but it was
already too late, so i renamed it to comply.
Please also note that nodejs runs (js) scripts, so the renaming means
each nodejs module[0] that may be packaged in the future,
and that provides executables, will need to be patch
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Olivier Berger
* Package name: fusionforge-oslc-cm-server
Upstream Author : Olivier Berger et al.
* URL :
https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Oslc/Web/FusionForgeOslcServer
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: PHP
Peter Grasch writes:
> Hi!
>
>> One conclusion from earlier discussions about the Julius license on
>> debian-legal was that it was non-free:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-le...@lists.debian.org/msg40898.html
>>
>> The thread isn't completely clear to me what the exact problem is
>> t
On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So,
>> nodejs can stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both
>> packages provide the same binary (same filename
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So, nodejs can
> stay as is. The rename would be necessary if both packages provide the
> same binary (same filename), which is not the case here.
>
Actually, from the
On 21/09/2010 17:22, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>
> You are quick with the "wrong" button.
It's my new toy :)
> The UPSTREAM nodejs is /usr/bin/node. The Debian package renamed it to
> nodejs.
>
Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
Debian package only because
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> On 21/09/2010 16:02, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >>
> >> Wrong. nodejs still provides the binary nodejs and not _node_. So,
> >> nodejs can stay as is. The rename wo
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: chrysn
* Package name: visolate
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : Marsette A. Vona, III
* URL : http://www.mit.edu/~vona/Visolate/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Java
Description : tool for engraving PCBs usin
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:26:30PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> Did you say that before? I don't think so. Personally, I care about the
> Debian package only because the original bugreport (from where this
> discussion started) was against the Debian package and for a Debian
> specificity, not a
Hi!
Am 2010-09-21 16:39, schrieb Simon Josefsson:
Is Julius dynamically linked to Simon? I wonder whether GPLv2 is
compatible with the Julius license.
Yes it is. The simon license contains a special exception to allow this.
This is also covered here:
http://www.simon-listens.org/wiki/index.ph
Hi,
If you use the derivatives-bugs[1] PTS keyword to receive bugmail from
Ubuntu, it is possible that you did not receive some mails during the
last few days.
Due to the migration of qa.debian.org to another host, the script that
receives emails from Launchpad and forwards them to the appropriat
Peter Grasch writes:
> Hi!
>
> Am 2010-09-21 16:39, schrieb Simon Josefsson:
Is Julius dynamically linked to Simon? I wonder whether GPLv2 is
compatible with the Julius license.
>>> Yes it is. The simon license contains a special exception to allow this.
>>> This is also covered here:
Hi All,
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
Debian Edition (LMDE) [1] show how valuable and unique Debian's rolling
distribution (testing) is. But every freeze in the preparation to
upcoming stable release in effect, eliminates 'testing' (and actually
unstable
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:09 -0400
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux
> Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) [1] show how valuable and unique Debian's
> rolling distribution (testing) is. But every freeze in the
> preparation to upc
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
>
> How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
I think his proposal boils down to this: we *always* have unstable and
testing to upload whatever we want and handle transiti
Le lundi 20 septembre 2010 à 12:47 +0200, Adrian von Bidder a écrit :
> Hi Arthur,
>
> On Monday 20 September 2010 11.37:04 Obey Arthur Liu wrote:
> [GSoC report]
>
> Hmm. It would have been nice to hear about what the students did and how
> far they got in their GSoC projects instead of what t
26 matches
Mail list logo
