Hi,
My name is Loc.
I'm investigating about debian website systems.
I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any where.
So, could i have it's source code?
Thank you very much and best regards
Loc
--
Hoang Duc Loc (Mr)
Hi,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
> Hi,
> My name is Loc.
>
> I'm investigating about debian website systems.
> I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
> But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any where.
>
> So, could i have it'
Thank you so much.
On 1/9/2013 6:10 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
Hi,
My name is Loc.
I'm investigating about debian website systems.
I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
But i cannot get source code of packa
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: package.debian.org"):
> Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
> > I'm investigating about debian website systems.
> > I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
> > But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any wher
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
retitle 697433 New fields Package-List and Package-Type.
usertags 697433 normative discussion
thanks
Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>
> I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> the valid
Le Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> From my point of view we should now discuss first what way to prefer:
> Either the 'Files-Excluded' field or 'License: not-shipped-by-debian'
> should be used and we should decide now before we keep on implementing
> it. I have
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
* Package name: ppsspp
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Henrik Rydgård
* URL : http://www.ppsspp.org/
* License : GPL2+
PSPSDK BSD-compatible license
Programming Lang: C, C+
Hi!
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> > I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> > the valid package types. There's already a Package-Type field for that
> > (defau
Nick Andrik writes:
> My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
> I contacted the people that own the copyright of those files proposing a
> default license of GPL2+ (no strong feelings about that, just a
> suggestion).
> I was told that debian/copyright contains the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Nick Andrik wrote:
> Recently I was trying to convert the debian/copyright file of a
> non-free package ( unrar-nonfree ) to 1.0 format.
> The main license of this software is non-free (mainly because it does
> not allow reverse engineering of the RAR algorithm) b
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:07AM +0200, Nick Andrik a écrit :
>
> My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
Hi,
Not all Debian source packages contain license or copyright notices for the
files in the debian directory. It is therefore not strictly required to
spec
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 06:26 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> We have unrar-nonfree that builds the binary package unrar and
> unrar-free that builds the binary package unrar-free.
We also have unar that builds the binary package unar.
> I guess you meant
> > unrar-nonfree can probably be removed from
2013/1/10 Paul Wise :
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Nick Andrik wrote:
>
>> Recently I was trying to convert the debian/copyright file of a
>> non-free package ( unrar-nonfree ) to 1.0 format.
>> The main license of this software is non-free (mainly because it does
>> not allow reverse engine
>> I guess you meant
>> > unrar-nonfree can probably be removed from Debian now that we have
>> > unrar-free?
>
> Definitely not, since unrar-free does not support the RAR format
> versions that unrar-nonfree or unar support. I suggest we can probably
> remove unrar-free and unrar-nonfree now that
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Nick Andrik wrote:
> The main reason I decided to deal with unrar is because of e-book
> reader calibre needing the libunrar.so library [1] in order to read
> CBR files.
I see.
> Can unar provide such an interface?
It is LGPL, so it could be made to provide suc
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:13:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:07AM +0200, Nick Andrik a écrit :
> >
> > My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
>
> Hi,
>
> Not all Debian source packages contain license or copyright notices for the
Hi Charles,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:00:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that it would be preferrable to refrain from adding special keywords
> to
> the License field, to guarantee that it contains only license information. I
> would therefore recommend using the Files-Excluded fiel
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > For the packages I maintain, I now refrain from doing so when the contents
> > of
> > the debian directory are trivial.
>
> I guess you don't bother to claim copyright for trivial debian/* files.
>
> When there is no copyright and
18 matches
Mail list logo
