Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Josefsson
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: cppi
Version : 1.18-1
Upstream Author : Jim Meyering, FSF, et al
* URL : https://www.gnu.org/software/cppi/
* License : GPL-3+
Programming
Hi.
Most tools from netkit are candidates for migration to GNU InetUtils,
and rwho(d) may be another one -- see email and bug report below.
Cc'ing debian-devel to have broader discussion.
First, I think we need to understand the rationale for doing anything
about 'netkit-rwho': do we want to do s
Chris Hofstaedtler writes:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 23:36:31 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> IMO, and from discussions in the Debian Perl Group, the blocker is
>> the conversion of existing repos, both on salsa (which should be
>> doable via the API as suggested in the sketches mentioned above) and
Andrey Rakhmatullin writes:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 12:20:16PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> My personal preference would be if we make a pristine-tar branch default
>> since this is what I observed in the wide majority of cases.
>
> Note that there are different opionons whether pristine-tar
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Simon Josefsson
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libntruprime
Version : 20240825
Upstream Authort: Daniel J. Bernstein
* URL : https://libntruprime.cr.yp.to/
* License : LicenseRef-PD-hp OR CC0
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's
> too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list
> of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that
> appear
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
>
> A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how
> those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a
> DFSG-
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061016 13:19]:
>> I went over many packages looking for names of likely non-free files,
>> and there may be false positives. If this is the case for your
>> package, I'm sorry for t
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Simon Josefsson]
>> Do you have suggestions to improve the situation?
>
> I would suspect manual inspection of each file, and only file bugs for
> the files with real license problems. Using the file name to guess
&g
e copyright file gives a 404:
<http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/subversion.html>. Probably a
temporary problem...
/Simon
[1] Old e-mail:
From: RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Copyright and copying conditions for RFC 1510?
To: Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: RFC Editor
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002
Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:48:50PM +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > * Simon Josefsson ([EMAIL PROTE
Some raised a concern with false positives in my reports -- and also
tagged all the bugs with etch-ignore. I went through all bug reports
manually yesterday (see earlier mail), but I also realized that it
would be possible to do this automatically, to provide further
assurance that the bugs indica
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The second problem seems to be generic. The reason I looked at
>> packages in testing was that they are the packages that are going to
>> be released, and if I
On 17 okt 2006, at 18.47, Luk Claes wrote:
Some statistics:
74 packages
401 MATCH, i.e., the RFC in the source package is an authentic RFC
79 MISMATCH, i.e., the RFC differ from the authentic RFC
6 FETCH-FAIL
Note that not all authentic RFC documents have the same license,
some of t
This was originally on debian-legal, but it was suggested to ask here
before mass-filing bug reports. Opinions? Should we file bugs for
this? What severity?
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think you should file bug reports, but I think you should ask a
> wider or higher audience (maybe
I went over the package list more carefully, and it seems the only two
public domain RFCs that are included in Debian testing:
usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc951.txt.gznet/dhcp3-common
usr/share/doc/camstream-doc/tech/rfc959.txt.gz doc/camstream-doc
The following p
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> text/xml2rfc
>
> From the debian/copyright file:
>
> | The software is released under the following license. Note that the
> | output produced by xml2rfc may include more restrictive copyrigh
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 28 April 2006 13:34, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> The following packages appear to contain IETF RFCs/drafts, and I'll
>> file bug reports for them:
>
> As per good mass filing practices, can you create a linda/linti
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:22PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>> also sprach Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.11.1535 +0200]:
>>> > * License : GPL v2 or later
>>>
>>> That will make it pr
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:46:
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> gnutls changed their ABI again.
...
> Gnutls in Debian is properly versioned (as opposed to Upstream, which
> dropped the versioning script for no good reason), and thus I am
The change was discussed on the mailing list:
http://thread.gmane.
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The change was discussed on the mailing list:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/464
>>
>> If you had reported this problem to us, we would fix it.
>>
> Sorry about that -- I didn't read the list consistently.
> M
Hi. I'd like to get in contact with someone who would be interested
in creating and supporting Debian packages for my Kerberos 5
implementation, and its related GSS-API library. Web pages are
available at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/shishi/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gss/
Shishi and GSS can b
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:43:43PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> One advantage with my Kerberos 5 implementation compared to
>> MIT/Heimdal is that it support Kerberos 5 over TLS, which means that
>> y
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi. I'd like to get in contact with someone who would be interested in
>> creating and supporting Debian packages for my Kerberos 5
>> implementation, and it
"J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 09:32:58AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I expect the initial packaging to be simple, it is just a './configure
>> && make install' package. Part of the 'make install
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Having you as a co-maintainer would be great.
>
>> I expect the initial packaging to be simple, it is just a './configure
>> && make install' pa
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:01:41PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Shishi can co-exist with either of MIT or Heimdal. It doesn't use a
>> similar API at all. The library has a clean name space (shishi_*).
>> The too
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> I notice from
>>> <http://josefsson.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/shishi/README?rev=1.30&view=markup>
&
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:01:41PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Shishi can co-exist with either of MIT or Heimdal. It doesn't use a
>> similar API at all. The library has a clean name space (shishi_*)
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> other), the addition of licensing problems means that there's basically no
>>> motivation for anyone to try to use shishi.
>>
>> One motivation would be to get the unique features that Shishi has that
>> the other Kerberos implementation has. E.g., non
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The software area in which you're writing code is fairly mature and even
> standardized. Pretty much everything that does SASL uses Cyrus SASL.
It is not even that good, plenty of applications implement their own
SASL code. A quick ldd $bin|grep sasl s
Hi everyone!
I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
Debian in the past, and that the RFCs has been removed from the
official archive (?), so I thought this would be of some interest to
you. I am trying to influence the IETF to change the copying
conditions on RFCs to m
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> I explain the current problems, and I try to put together a proposed
>> update, and I have a petition online at:
>>
>> http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
>
> Very nice, thanks.
>
&
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>> I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
>>> Debian in the pa
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:16:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
Unlimited distribution isn't the problem. Modification and
redistribut
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
>>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft.
>>
>> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft lic
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Peter Samuelson:
>
>>> * Simon Josefsson:
>>> > The Contributor grants third parties the right to
>>> > copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
>>> > modification, in
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> Is that license acceptable to the Debian community?
>
> Looks fine to me. Is it going to be retroactive?
It is a good question. The RFC Editor has claimed that the RFC 2026
license apply to older RFCs t
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Also, RFCs with the new license doesn't include the license template
>> itself, it just reference BCP 78. So if BCP 78 is updated, perhaps it
>> automati
While recursively unpacking source archives in the debian repository
(see [1]), I noticed a small number of packages that contain corrupt
zip/tgz archives. Logs from unpacking them are available from:
http://josefsson.org/broken-debian-origs/
The error messages are mixed in the output due to dif
There weren't much response on this. I'll go through these bugs now and
file them as wishlist bugs. Any objections?
/Simon
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While recursively unpacking source archives in the debian repository
> (see [1]), I noticed a small n
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No responses? No one cares enough to comment? Lets see if a change in
>> subject helps.
>>
>> Do the files created from the RFCs also have the same restrictive license
>> as the RFCs themselves?
>
> The text of t
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This seems to imply that you no longer have a file named rfc3454.txt? You
>> want to strip all the text out of that file except for the table, but
>> leave the table in the tree still named rfc3454.txt.
>>
> This would imply unders
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose that a package wants to create a UNIX domain socket as part of
> its test suite. If the socket is created within the package build
> directory, this might fail because of the quite low path name length
> limit. What is the correct way of deali
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:51:21PM +0100, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
> wrote:
>> I thought that the 2007 key was (based on [1]) supposed to be available
>> early in January and available in the debian-archive-keyring package. Which
>> doesn't seem to be the case.
>
>
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> With Gnus+Mailcrypt, I was unable to vote with a signed but not
>> encrypted ballot. The voting daemon claimed that there was some
>> kind of quoted-printable problem. This surprised me: Gnus and
>> Mailcrypt ha
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * 2007-04-12 11:29, Joey Hess wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be reasonable to make d-i hit one of two urls
>> depending on whether the user chose to enable popcon, and count the
>> results.
>
> Isn't this a violation of user's privacy? If the user h
Jorge Salamero Sanz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 04:20:53 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Two weeks ago I've sent an email no Yvan, asking if he was still
>> interested in maintaining those packages. Both have newer upstream
>> versions. There is a bug with a patch for libgsa
Arnaud Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Before I maintain nethack-el, it was not relying on dh_installemacsen
> and startup file was installed as /etc/emacs/site-start.d/50nethack.el.
> However, it now relies on dh_installemacsen and the file is now
> installed as /e
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> there are currently 122 RC bugs remaining that affect both testing and
> unstable. We need to fix them NOW.
>
> However, in the permanent BSP state that has lasted for quite some time,
> people seem to lose focus on this urgent need for the re
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
One way to resolve this dilemma is to realize t
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The solution to your problem already exists (actually, it has been
> *designed* for that): http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
> , it "just" needs someone with the energy of finalizing the proposal
> (most likely via a DEP), so that is
Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:25:20PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The solution to your problem already exists (actually, it has been
>>
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:45:12 +0100
> Kjeldgaard Morten wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Thanks. Unless you setup some experimental method, any argument
>> > should reduce
>> > to handwaving or extension of various particular examples..
>>
>> Surely, it must be possible to get an est
James Vega writes:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:55 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
>> [2009-01-15 22:37] Michael Goetze
>>>
>>> before wild speculations ensues, you might want to specify what you
>>> really want to know: the percentage of people installing debian systems
>>> who use popcon (always/so
Neil Williams writes:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:24:58 +0100
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Neil Williams writes:
>>
>> >> Surely, it must be possible to get an estimate of the number of
>> >> downloads of important packages and security upd
Johannes Wiedersich writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Merely the number of distinct IP addresses downloading a particular
>> popular update from security.debian.org at least once would be
>> interesting.
>
> Did you think about thousands of computers having &#
Bernd Eckenfels writes:
> In article <87d4enbfqd@mocca.josefsson.org> you wrote:
>> It would establish an upper bound of well-administrated debian machines,
>> I think.
>
> It is a lower bound, since I guess there are more cases where more than one
> machine is updated. The case that you down
Jorge Salamero Sanz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007 21:06:10 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Simon Josefsson helps maintain Debian packges for several of his other
>> packages (gss, shishi) and may be willing to help. He's also generally
>> great
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] expands to a greenend.org.uk address, and the mx for that
> domain refuses to accept my mail.
>
> : host
> mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk[212.13.197.229] said: 550
> invalid MAIL-FROM: Error during DNS MX lookup for
> lap
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I finally got through the test builds of all the source packages in sid for
> i386 using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 on a dual core machine. The results as
> before are at http://people.debian.org/~schepler/build-logs/bymaint.html .
Which said:
shishi
Brian May writes:
> Or is there another way?
There is the option of changing GnuTLS to use something other than
libgcrypt. There are APIs for doing this dynamically in GnuTLS, and if
that is not sufficient (if you want to avoid linking to libgcrypt
entirely) we could also support e.g. GNU Nettl
Mats Erik Andersson writes:
> Hello,
>
> the package for the small web server Webfs has had SSL-support inactivated
> at least since July 2006, when #395873 began discussing migration to GnuTLS.
> Nothing ever happened, but now, having recently adopted the package, I am
> prepared to submit a new
Joerg Jaspert writes:
>>> Now, should the technician not be able to resurrect ries, our backup
>>> plan extends to have the disks shipped over and replace the ones
>>> currently in rietz.
>> I'm wondering if Debian has the resources (DSA, local admins and
>> hardware) to have a hot-swappable back
Frank Lin PIAT writes:
> -
> libssh2 is the thin library implementing client side of SSH2 protocol
> as defined by Internet Drafts SECSH-TRANS, SECSH-USERAUTH,
> SECSH-CONNECTION, SECSH-ARCH, SECSH-FILEXFER, SECSH-DHGEX,
> SECSH-NUMBERS, and SECSH-PUBLICKEY
> .
> This boils down to the
Michael Banck writes:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:13:51PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 07:03:16AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:40:48PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>> > > The difference is that those tools provide a reasonable level of
"Hans-J. Ullrich" writes:
> Hi guys! Good news!
>
> Hydra is now beeing maintained again, and it is now free! Thanks to its
> maintainer, hydra is now set under the GPLV3.
>
> Yeah!
>
> Please take a look:
>
> http://freeworld.thc.org/thc-hydra/
>
> Maybe you might want to put it back into deb
Peter Grasch writes:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Peter Grasch
>
>
> * Package name: simon
> Version : 0.3.0
> Upstream Author : Peter Grasch
> * URL : http://www.simon-listens.org/
> * License : GPL, BSD, GFDL and Julius
> Programming Lang
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Peter Grasch, le Tue 14 Sep 2010 22:22:42 +0200, a écrit :
>> I haven't really thought about it but the license shouldn't be an issue
>> afaik.
>>
>> This topic has come up multiple times already but have a look at theses
>> discussions on why I think this should be o
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
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
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
Wookey writes:
> At this points it calls the linker and adds -L/usr/lib on the front -
> thereby adding this path in front of the default cross-compiler path.
Please try to debug where the -L/usr/lib comes from, I don't believe
libtool is adding this by itself but instead it is told to add it by
Ben Finney writes:
> I'm having a conversation with a Debian packager regarding a manpage
> that, currently, is a mere placeholder saying “please see foocommand
> --help”, giving none of the useful information normally found in a
> manpage.
...
> I have submitted a manpage as a patch. However, th
Michal Čihař writes:
> Dne Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:10:24 +0300
> Peter Eisentraut napsal(a):
>
>> Like lintian, your list falsely includes packages that use cdbs to build,
>> which automatically updates config.{sub,guess}.
>
> If you don't build depend on autotools-dev, nothing can be updated (at
>
Roger Leigh writes:
> I think it is a problem extending to all virtual packages, and I would
> like to see a more general solution which is applicable to all. It
> might be worth revisiting past discussion, for example this thread:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg01281.html
>
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-05-11, Brian May wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:31:07PM +0200, Jens Peter Secher wrote:
>>> +1 for ssmtp
>> I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were
>> generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory.
>
> Please not s
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Simon Josefsson , 2009-05-11, 12:55:
>>>>> +1 for ssmtp
>>>> I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were
>>>> generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory.
>>>
>>>
Paul Wise writes:
> Please ask your upstreams to remove the Unicode data files from their
> version control systems and source tarballs and instead check for and
> use external Unicode data files at build-time or run-time. Then your
> packages can Build-Depend or Depend on the unicode-data binary
Adam Borowski writes:
> What would you guys say about cutting some cruft from priority:standard?
Yay.
> bind9-host dnsutils host libbind9-90 libdns100 libisc95 liblwres90
Is the BIND libraries pulled in just because of 'host'? Seems rather
heavy to me. Anyway, the 'host' package seems to be
Josh Triplett writes:
> - make-guile. More of a question than a recommendation for a change,
> but why is this standard and make optional, rather than the other way
> around?
Is this mostly about naming? GNU Make has guile-support by default, so
I would say that 'make' should be with Guile
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 08/17/2012 09:40 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What I didn't know until recently is that the minified version in the
>>> source package should be removed (or the appropriate full version should
>>> be append
Vincent Bernat writes:
> ❦ 19 août 2012 15:11 CEST, "Bernhard R. Link" :
>
>>> The difference is that we need to bug upstream about a file that we
>>> won't even use. There is no real bug (not even a licensing issue).
>>
>> They are distributing files without source, so everyone else can either
Pau Garcia i Quiles writes:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>> As for
>>> verification, having the source next to the minified version does not
>>> guarantee anything about the minified version, all the more that we
>>&g
Andreas Tille writes:
> Files-Excluded:
> docs/source/fonts/*
> docs/source/javascripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js
> docs/source/javascripts/modernizr-2.5.3.min.js
...
> Regarding the implementation there was some uncertainity about the
> actual Perl module to use. In the attached example script
Andreas Tille writes:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:25:26PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> How about resolving the empty directory problem by permitting the
>> Files-Excluded to match directories? Thus, if you want to remove the
>> docs/source/fonts/ hierarchy, yo
Damien Raude-Morvan writes:
> IMHO, it's obvious that yui-compressor is not - anymore - the most
> efficient javascript minifier and better alternative exists. It's
> simply not used anymore by "big players" of Javascript libs (like
> jQuery) so it receives less attention (even from Yahoo for YUI
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> Hey.
>
> Apart from the question whether this RFC is anyhow reasonable...
>
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:55 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Category: Best Current Practice
> Can a BCP deprecate stuff which is standardised by RFCs from the
> standards track?
What
Christoph Anton Mitterer writes:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:18 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> What RFCs are you thinking of? The "X-" stuff was removed from e-mail
>> standards long time ago, IIRC.
> Well I don't have all RFCs in mind,... but weren'
I just stumbled upon this initiative:
http://www.spdx.org/
It is a way to specify the licensing and copyright information (and
more) for software packages. There is some overlap between
debian/copyright file and especially the DEP5 format. Alas, the SPDX
format is XML based, an example for GNU
Michael Shuler writes:
> On 12/13/2011 09:17 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Possibly DEP5-compliant files could be generated from SPDX files.
>
> This has come up in several DEP5 discussions over the past ~year, as
> well as several recent mentions:
>
> https://www.googl
Russ Allbery writes:
>> Note that "Copyright (C) 2008 Peter Miller" is different than "Copyright
>> (C) 2011 Peter Miller" is different than "Copyright (C) 1991, 2012 Peter
>> Miller", so the cross product is going to be substantial for long lived
>> projects, even when the number of contributors
I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty inifinte-loop bug has
been fixed. However, I am not certain what should be done before
uploading a re-licen
Paul Wise writes:
> I would suggest asking the FSF licensing folks and debian-legal.
Good point about debian-legal, I'll repost the question there. I have
talked to the FSF and they suggest LGPLv3+ but will live with
dual-GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ if there are significant GPLv2-only applications in
the fr
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
>> into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty inifinte-loop bug has
Florian Weimer writes:
(GPLv2-only and LGPLv3+ are incompatible.)
>>>
>>> Nowadays, almost all GPLv2-only programs link to library code licensed
>>> under the GPLv3 (with a linking exception on the library side), so we
>>> pretend that they are, at least to some degree.
>>
>> How does that l
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
>
> So maybe that's a stupid question, but... Why? You didn'
Thanks for several responses -- however the underlying question I had,
whether the upload the new package to unstable or not, was not resolved.
Does anyone see any reason to delay or abstain from the upload? If not,
I'll do the upload within days.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-deve
Marco Nenciarini writes:
> Il giorno gio, 11/10/2012 alle 02.46 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer ha
> scritto:
>>
>> On the other hand, some worries are there that this could imply some
>> decline in Debian itself.
>> Well I still think Debian is the best distro out there for most (if not
>> all
1 - 100 of 383 matches
Mail list logo
