On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:14:48PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> It seems to me that an interpreter supporting DSO language extensions
> can have multi-arch support at several different levels.
> 1) multiarch annotations for /usr/bin/interp, but no Multi-Arch:same
>packages. The architecture of /
Paul Tagliamonte writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > 2. What is source for a non-programmatic work such as a rendered
> > bitmap of a 3-D model, do we require source for non-programmatic
> > works, and if not, what defines a programmatic work?
>
> Preferred f
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Leo Iannacone
* Package name: npm2deb
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Leo Iannacone
* URL : https://github.com/LeoIannacone/npm2deb
* License : GPL-3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : tool to debianize Nod
Hi Ben,
On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Preferred form of modification.
>
> As far as I understand it, that phrase doesn't make sense.
>
> My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what constitutes
> source for a work is: the preferred form of the work for making
> m
Holger Levsen writes:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I understand it, that phrase [“preferred form of
> > modification”] doesn't make sense.
> >
> > My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what
> > constitutes source for a work is: the pref
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/03/2014 07:45 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>> My understanding of the FTP team's operating policy for what
>>> constitutes source for a work is: the preferred form of the work
>>> for making modifications to i
Russ Allbery dixit:
>Svante Signell writes:
>
>> Does the Debian guidelines give any hints on who is responsible to
>> report a patch upstream? Is it the bug submitters or the Debian package
>> maintainers responsibility (in addition to eventually apply them to the
>> packages)?
>
>I don't think
Nikolaus Rath dixit:
>Ah, wait. So is the requirement that we ship the source to all files in
>the source package, or is the requirement to ship the source to all
>files in the source package that are used to generate the binary
>package?
The former, plus…
>Paul Tagliamonte writes:
>> Yes. Ple
Ben Finney dixit:
>That is, to answer the question “what is the source form of the work”,
>we need a definition that answers in terms of “such-and-so form of the
>work”.
Well, the one you’d want to have when you were to modify (think, fork)
the original work in question.
In the autoconf case: ev
On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 12:02 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>
> >Svante Signell writes:
> >
> >> Does the Debian guidelines give any hints on who is responsible to
> >> report a patch upstream? Is it the bug submitters or the Debian package
> >> maintainers responsibility (in
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
212 was released in March. Why not package that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
Hi Ben,
On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
> > care to explain the difference?
> We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even
> makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't seem
> coherent in the context). We're interested in what form of the *w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-source-map
Version : 3.0.1
Upstream Author : Conrad Irwin
* URL : https://rubygems.org/gems/source_map
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : A Ruby lib
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:37PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:20:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Is there any disagreement about this? As far as I've understood so far,
> > there
> > are only two points that keep being discussed:
> >
> > 1. Do we need to check
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-05-03 15:26:37)
> On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> care to explain the difference?
>> We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even
>> makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't
>> seem coherent in the context
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-backbone-on-rails
Version : 1.1.1.0
Upstream Author : William Meleyal
* URL : https://rubygems.org/gems/backbone-on-rails
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Ruby
Descripti
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Jordi Mallach wrote:
>> Michael B. also updated systemd to 208 in experimental.
>
> 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
I believe people pushing AppArmor in Debian would appreciate that.
v2
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: ruby-handlebars-assets
Version : 0.15
Upstream Author : Les Hill
* URL : https://rubygems.org/gems/handlebars_assets
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : C
Hi Jordi, and thanks for this interesting report!
One point I'd like to see discussed is the Bluez5 transition:
Le vendredi, 2 mai 2014, 01.26:15 Jordi Mallach a écrit :
> We finally discussed how to tackle Bluez5. Bluez 4 is the current
> release available in Debian, which is dead upstream and d
On 2014-05-03, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> This does not, of course, prevent people like the Mesa maintainers
> from refusing to do it. I’ve got no idea how to enforce DevRef on
> them, though.
Thank you for volunteering to help forwarding bug reports for the mesa
package.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
Sune Vuorela dixit:
>On 2014-05-03, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> This does not, of course, prevent people like the Mesa maintainers
>> from refusing to do it. I’ve got no idea how to enforce DevRef on
>Thank you for volunteering to help forwarding bug reports for the mesa
Did you *read* how upstre
Hi,
> > 212 was released in March. Why not package that?
>
Not having been there, I would guess that packaging 208 had already begun
before the sprint, and thus should be completed and reasonably bug-free
before going forward to yet another version with (probably) its own issues.
--
-- Matthias
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Prévot
Control: affects -1 php-guzzle
* Package name: php-guzzle-stream
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Michael Dowling
* URL : http://docs.guzzlephp.org/en/guzzle4/streams.html
* License : Expat
Programming La
Hello all,
gmp has been recently re-licensed and all architectures and ports have
the updated gmp in jessie/sid. Well, all but powerpcspe & x32 both of
which recently have negative slope on their build status graphs.
Thus GPLv2 and LGPLv3 compatible software packages can link against gnutls28.
Sh
Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Hello all,
gmp has been recently re-licensed and all architectures and ports have
the updated gmp in jessie/sid. Well, all but powerpcspe & x32 both of
which recently have negative slope on their build status graphs.
Thus GPLv2 and LGPLv3 compatible software packages c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil
* Package name: libjs-handlebars
Version : 1.3.0
Upstream Author : Yehuda Katz
* URL : http://www.handlebarsjs.com
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Javascript
Description : let you build
26 matches
Mail list logo
