Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.1.1
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
from my experience with other issue trackers, I sometimes feel the wish
of adding a 'Refs: #nn' mention in debian/changelog that would post
about the upload in that bug without closing it.
Possible use cases for this: uploading de
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > As a rule, you are supposed to get rid of all autogenerated files and
> > rebuild them from scratch when packaging for Debian. AM_MAINTAINER_MODE
> > changes nothing in that case, as you will readly notice any upstream
> > breakage when you try to b
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> More automated and manual testing can help here I guess.
Sure, but I don't expect Debian maintainers to write a test suite
when upstream hasn't created one. And testing an interactive web
application is a rather difficult problem.
> Also hopefully maintaine
Package: blueman
Version: 1.21-4.1+b1
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
blueman-applet has some problem in debian box. I have blueman 1.21-4.1+b1
installed with
debian wheezy. Obviously I have added the user at bluetooth group; dbus is also
working. I can on/off
* Raphael Hertzog , 2011-10-26, 16:31:
Also hopefully maintainers are using the packages they maintain and
will therefore notice when they are broken by newer JavaScript
libraries.
I do but I'm not using all the features all the time and I don't test
them for each upload.
For instance I jus
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog , 2011-10-26, 16:31:
> >For instance I just noticed that we can't install new widgets with
> >the current wordpress package due to some javascript related
> >problem. I'm not familiar enough with the codebase to investigate
> >it easil
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
> often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
> distributed, which would be a violation of DFSG item 2.
I did not reply on this at first but since Jakub filed #646729 us
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> > One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
> > often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
> > distributed, which would be a violation of DFS
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I don't agree that minified files are a violation of DFSG #2. If the
> > library is under the GPL then it would be a problem because it's not the
> > preferred form of modification.
>
> J
Package: wnpp
Owner: Nicholas Bamber
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libcgi-application-plugin-actiondispatch-perl
Version : 0.98
Upstream Author : Jason Yates
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Mathieu Malaterre
* Package name: mrmpi
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Steve Plimpton and Karen Devine
* URL : http://www.cs.sandia.gov/~sjplimp/mapreduce.html
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: C++
Description :
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 21:00 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Just because it's not GPL doesn't mean DFSG can be ignored.
>
> Well, minified or not, my point is that it's "code". And DFSG#2 refers to
> source code not to "preferred form of modification"
]] Raphael Hertzog
Hi,
| On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Julien Cristau wrote:
| > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
| > > I don't agree that minified files are a violation of DFSG #2. If the
| > > library is under the GPL then it would be a problem because it's not the
| > > p
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
>> One of the other problems with embedded JavaScript libraries is that
>> often only the pre-compiled/obfuscated/minified version is
>> distributed, which would be a violation of DFSG item 2.
>
W dniu 24.10.2011 01:20, Ben Finney pisze:
I would very much like that to change – that programmers should expect a
single instance of a Javascript library to be useable across the OS, and
that a Javascript library without a dependable ABI should be shunned by
most application writers, and for ap
W dniu 24.10.2011 01:20, Ben Finney pisze:
I would very much like that to change – that programmers should expect a
single instance of a Javascript library to be useable across the OS, and
that a Javascript library without a dependable ABI should be shunned by
most application writers, and for ap
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> If anything, having one version of a javascript library *hurts*
> Debian-as-a-platform. I would encourage a different approach altogether:
> explicit mutli-versioning (ideally for all upstream releases or for all
> upstream releases that ar
W dniu 27.10.2011 00:46, Michael Gilbert pisze:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
If anything, having one version of a javascript library *hurts*
Debian-as-a-platform. I would encourage a different approach altogether:
explicit mutli-versioning (ideally for all upstream re
W dniu 27.10.2011 00:29, Zygmunt Krynicki pisze:
W dniu 24.10.2011 01:20, Ben Finney pisze:
I would very much like that to change – that programmers should expect a
single instance of a Javascript library to be useable across the OS, and
that a Javascript library without a dependable ABI should
Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Dealing with embedded javascript libraries"):
> There isn't any real technical factor limiting the number of versions
> to one. Theoretically, there could both jquery1.4 and jquery1.6
> source packages coexisting (as long as the binary files are
> appropriately version
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> Is there anyone that would like to mentor me for a while to help me get
> started? I'm quite interested in solving this problem.
You can certainly work on anything in Debian (including this) and
present your work to mentors [0] and/or the
Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:08:14PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> But with more liberal licenses, we should certainly accept that the
> minified files are their own sources much like we accept any other blob of
> data under a free license.
Hello Raphaël and everybody,
one of the problem wi
Hi,
I was trying to make a .deb package of uploadprogress-1.0.3.1.tgz,
(downloaded from PECL - http://pecl.php.net/package/uploadprogress)
using dh-make-php, on Squeeze.
Followed the instructions given in the link:
http://freestylesystems.co.uk/blog/installing-pecl-uploadprogress-extension-drupal
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Antoine Beaupré"
* Package name: kiwiirc
Version : 0~20111004
Upstream Author : Darren
* URL : https://github.com/prawnsalad/KiwiIRC
* License : AGPL
Programming Lang: Javascript
Description : Web based IRC clien
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't agree that minified files are a violation of DFSG #2. If the
> library is under the GPL then it would be a problem because it's not the
> preferred form of modification.
I think this is exactly the same as xserver-xorg-video-nv, wh
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The difficulty is that if we end up with ten different versions of
> some random javascript library, when it turns out to have a security
> vulnerability we need to somehow backport the patch to each of those
> ten versions.
>
> And here "we" m
Paul Wise writes:
> What is the preferred form for modification for a work (aka source) is
> highly context-dependent.
I'd like to poke a little bit at the assumption that these two things are
the same and that Debian necessarily uses the GPL term as our definition
of source.
To me, the source
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> To me, the source of something is *a* form suitable for modification of
> the work. This is *not* necessarily the same thing as the GPL's "the
> preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think
> Debian's term means that
Paul Wise writes:
> I completely disagree with this because I thought free software was
> about equality.
> Free software licenses bring back the equality broken by copyright law.
> These licenses are completely irrelevant if we do not have equality of
> access to the source form of a work.
I
29 matches
Mail list logo
