Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
* Package name: mruby
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : mruby developers
* URL : https://github.com/mruby/mruby
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: C, Ruby
Description : lightweight implementation
Hi,
the following packages from wheezy ship files that are excluded from
the .md5sums file:
gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/.gacl
gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/gridsitefoot.txt
gridsite: FILE WITHOUT MD5SUM /var/lib/gridsite/gridsitehead.txt
libreoffice-
Hi Nick,
On Thu, 10. Jan 05:35 Nick Andrik wrote:
[...]
> My main question is what kind of license should I specify in
> debian/copyright for debian/* ?
> If we assume that the packagers who have worked on this package during
> its lifetime can agree to a license for the packaging part, what are
* Markus Koschany , 2013-01-10, 11:11:
I am facing the same problem with my package zangband at the moment.
The license is non-free and does not allow copying and distribution for
"profit purposes". I had to update the copyright because of bug 696916
and 696919 and decided to make it clear that
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Joost van Baal-Ilić
* Package name: libtest-command-simple-perl
Upstream Author : Darin McBride
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Command-Simple/
* License : Perl (GPL or Artistic)
Programming Lang: Perl
Description
Hi,
Paul Wise wrote (10 Jan 2013 05:35:25 GMT) :
> 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.
FWIW, the GNOME archive mana
Quoting Markus Koschany (2013-01-10 11:11:30)
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Thu, 10. Jan 05:35 Nick Andrik wrote:
> [...]
> > My main question is what kind of license should I specify in
> > debian/copyright for debian/* ?
> > If we assume that the packagers who have worked on this package
> > during its l
Package: general
Severity: important
I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't
show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview).
The webcam appears to work fine, since it shows up at the remote end on skype
call (but I see nothing here)
Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:04:03 +0100
with message-id <201301101504.03808.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697854: general: Fail to display video
has caused the Debian Bug report #697854,
regarding general: Fail to display video
to be marked as done.
This means that you
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:44 +1100, Ralph Ronnquist wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: important
>
> I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't
> show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview).
>
> The webcam appears to work fine, si
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:44 +1100, Ralph Ronnquist wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: important
>
> I just installed a fresh Debian 6.0, and got the problem that video doesn't
> show, specifically in skype (neither preview nor call) and cheese (preview).
>
> The webcam appears to work fine, si
Well, as far as I can see it's a problem with the X server software
rather than anything else, or the particular collection of packages I
got on that installation. It happens with both cheese and skype, which
are the things I've tried, while guvcview fails to run completely, with
the note "Fata
I'm afraid I have tried this; I have libv4l-0 installed, and tried the
LD_PRELOAD variants as well. No luck :-(
The point is that it does work fine when displaying on another host via
ssh with X11 forwarding (though skype needs LD_PRELOAD). (Possibly plain
remote X11 as well, but I don't have
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 14:18 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Markus Koschany (2013-01-10 11:11:30)
> > Hi Nick,
...
> > On a side note, unace-nonfree also contains patches and the whole
> > debian directory is made available under the GPL-2+ license.
> >
> > Maybe a permissive license is
Svante Signell writes:
> This is a puzzling question for me: If you are the copyright holder of
> patches (they can be substantial) which license should apply?
Whatever license you want to put on it. However, it's going to need to be
compatible with the upstream license or the resulting patched
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:43:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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 clai
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the
> patch author has the option of what license they want to use.
>
> It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the free
> software community to
On 2013-01-10 17:54:28 + (+), Bart Martens wrote:
> I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely
> legally sound) in the free software community to just assume that
> the copyright of any patch submitted without any explicit
> copyright and license statement is transferred (
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Russ Allbery
* Package name: librrd-simple-perl
Version : 1.44
Upstream Author : Nicola Worthington
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/RRD-Simple/
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : Simp
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in
> the free software community to just assume that the copyright of any patch
> submitted without any explicit copyright and license statement is transferred
Bart Martens writes:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases
>> the patch author has the option of what license they want to use.
>> It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the fr
I'm trying to work with a source package that builds packages that
includes both binaries and dynamic libraries.
My question is on how to enable hardening in both of them, but PIE
support only in the binary (since libraries use PIC anyway).
My solution so far is something like this:
~~
reopen 697854
reassign 697854 cheese
thanks
# dear cheese maintainers,
# below is some context, please read the full bug log for full context ;)
Hi Ralph,
On Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2013, Ralph Ronnquist wrote:
> Well, as far as I can see it's a problem with the X server software
> rather than any
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 697854
Bug #697854 {Done: Holger Levsen } [general] general:
Fail to display video
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #697854 to the same values
previously set
> reassign 697854 cheese
Bug #697854 [general] gener
On 10/01/13 18:02, Nick Andrik wrote:
> I'm trying to work with a source package that builds packages that
> includes both binaries and dynamic libraries.
> My question is on how to enable hardening in both of them, but PIE
> support only in the binary (since libraries use PIC anyway).
Does your l
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Excluding shipped files from .md5sums looks seriously wrong for files
> in /usr and at least questionable in /var/lib.
What is so "serious" about that? Please no more rc mbf's.
Thanks,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-req
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
>> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
>> well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut'
>> link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it ca
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:36:35PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > From my perspective according to DEP5 it can only mean one thing: The
> > license is the same as specified in "Files: *" and you blame the
> > copyright holder mentioned in this stanca as copyright holder also for
> > debian/*.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the
> > patch author has the option of what license they want to use.
> > It's conventional (alth
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:46:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the
> > > patch author has t
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:56:10PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> It's what happens in practice when I submit a patch upstream and don't say
> anything about my copyright. Upstream integrates the patch in the upstream
> source code and redistributes the result with upstream copyright and license.
>
Bart Martens writes:
> It's what happens in practice when I submit a patch upstream and don't
> say anything about my copyright. Upstream integrates the patch in the
> upstream source code and redistributes the result with upstream
> copyright and license. I think that this happens quite a lot.
Russ Allbery writes:
> In at least US law, and I'm fairly certain EU law as well, unless you
> have explicitly signed a legal contract to transfer your copyright
> interest to some other party, you still hold the copyright on every
> creative work that you've made, including any patches that you'
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 519 (new: 0)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 142 (new: 1)
Total number of packages request
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Mozilla Extension Maintainers
, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: xul-ext-stylish
Version : 1.3.1
Upstream Author : Jason Barnabe
* URL : http://userstyles.org/
: https://addons.mozilla
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Jonathan McCrohan
* Package name: dtv-scan-tables
Version : 20130111
Upstream Author : Manu Abraham
* URL : http://git.linuxtv.org/dtv-scan-tables.git
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: None
Description : Digital
Here's a cautionary heads up on the transition from ordinary to multilib Debian.
I run Debian Wheezy amd64. Some 32 bit applications are installed, and
somehow I came to a point where ia32libs wanted to update and
transition me to a multilib setup. I'm still trying to figure out if
that happened b
37 matches
Mail list logo
