Hi,
On Freitag, 20. März 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Yeah, that (file) looks totally reasonable to me. What has changed in the
> proposal that this is outdated now? Why not change it back?
Ok, I saw your mail on -devel now, stating that you were using revision 50 and
its at 500 now...
regards
[Transferred to -devel as suggested. Please follow-up there].
Le Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:40:33PM +, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
> It is not easy readables for humans
> It is u
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> there were some good points of the earlier drafts of that page and I use
> these in my own packages but the current version is completely
> unusable and unacceptable. (For an example of an acceptable midpoint,
> see
> http://packages.debian.
Sune Vuorela writes:
> After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
> sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
For those who weren't present when you were having that IRC
discussion, can you point us to
and indicative of poor packaging by the maintainer.
Overly complicated copyright files, files that I cannot understand at
first reading, files that contain errors - all will need modification
before sponsoring.
> It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
> It is no
not require more time than
with the old format, sometimes even less.
> No real gain.
You can write a program checking your copyright files and validating it
against the source code. And checking it is in fact easier, at least if
you have a program (lintian could read debian/copyright and validate
Hi!
After a discussion on #debian-mentors and other places, I will not
sponsor packages using the copyright file format described on
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
It is a too complex, overengineered solution to a very minor issue.
It is not easy readables for humans
It is ugl
Le Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:21:50PM +0100, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
>
> Well, licensecheck(1) exists. Maybe many packagers don't know it?
Hi Daniel,
I would rather think that one reason for defective debian/copyright files are
the false negatives of licensecheck ;) `grep -ri copyright
Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 00:15 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Although it should never happen, sometimes a new package we submit to our
> archive managers is rejected because the description of the copyright status
> of
> its files is either incorrect or lacunar. This is waste of precious
therefore think that it should be
possible to centralise the effort of reviewing debian/copyright files of new
packages even if it mixes people with various backgounds.
I have drafted a page on the wiki that summarises the motivations and proposes
a mode of operation. The key principle is peer
At Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:29:59 +,
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> > is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> > would be a nice thing to
At Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:29:59 +,
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> > is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> > would be a nice thing to
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Other problems is sshing from a non UTF terminal, but then luit helps,
> > but there is not really much we can do there, no ?
> This is a pain in the arse, frankly, beca
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Other problems is sshing from a non UTF terminal, but then luit helps,
> but there is not really much we can do there, no ?
This is a pain in the arse, frankly, because there's no way I've found
to pass environment variables such as LA
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Other problems is sshing from a non UTF terminal, but then luit helps,
> > but there is not really much we can do there, no ?
> This is a pain in the arse, frankly, beca
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Other problems is sshing from a non UTF terminal, but then luit helps,
> but there is not really much we can do there, no ?
This is a pain in the arse, frankly, because there's no way I've found
to pass environment variables such as LA
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have many locales there,
[...]
> Should be ok, no ?
Yes, it is correct...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silic
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:48:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:23:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, i most definitively cannot
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:45:41AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I choose fr_FR.UTF8 or something such in gnome GDM.
>
> And it IS just like that in your /etc/locale.gen as well? fr_FR only won't
> do.
I have many locales there,
en_IN UT
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> I have many locales there,
[...]
> Should be ok, no ?
Yes, it is correct...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silic
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:48:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:23:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, i most definitively cannot
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:45:41AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I choose fr_FR.UTF8 or something such in gnome GDM.
>
> And it IS just like that in your /etc/locale.gen as well? fr_FR only won't
> do.
I have many locales there,
en_IN UT
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:23:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, i most definitively cannot see it, and i am using a UTF-8 aware
> > > xterm (uxterm if i am not w
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:23:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Well, i most definitively cannot see it, and i am using a UTF-8 aware
> > > xterm (uxterm if i am not w
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> I choose fr_FR.UTF8 or something such in gnome GDM.
And it IS just like that in your /etc/locale.gen as well? fr_FR only won't
do.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In th
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> I choose fr_FR.UTF8 or something such in gnome GDM.
And it IS just like that in your /etc/locale.gen as well? fr_FR only won't
do.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In th
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sarge systems support UTF-8 really quite well, though, with a tiny bit
> of locales configuration. Even woody systems support them with only a
> few unpleasant bugs.
Testing this the other day with groff: using framebuffer utf-8 console
and GNOME termina
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sarge systems support UTF-8 really quite well, though, with a tiny bit
> of locales configuration. Even woody systems support them with only a
> few unpleasant bugs.
Testing this the other day with groff: using framebuffer utf-8 console
and GNOME termina
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Yep, noticed that also, man simpl
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Yep, noticed that also, man simpl
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yep, noticed that also, man simply removes the - from manpages,
> > > which is a pain, as they get used
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Depends how practical that is, I guess. For example, it's still unknown
> > > when groff will support
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 07:00:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yep, noticed that also, man simply removes the - from manpages,
> > > which is a pain, as they get used
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:22:36PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Depends how practical that is, I guess. For example, it's still unknown
> > > when groff will support
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Depends how practical that is, I guess. For example, it's still unknown
> > when groff will support it properly (as in UTF-8 input; UTF-8 output is
> > more or less OK no
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> > > and I think that the debi
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:38:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Depends how practical that is, I guess. For example, it's still unknown
> > when groff will support it properly (as in UTF-8 input; UTF-8 output is
> > more or less OK no
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:48:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> > > and I think that the debi
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> > and I think that the debian-specific files are a good place to start.
>
> Would the place to s
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> and I think that the debian-specific files are a good place to start.
Would the place to start not be to make sure that every piece of debian
support
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> > and I think that the debian-specific files are a good place to start.
>
> Would the place to s
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:07:59AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Of course, UTF-8 whereever possible is a nice goal to strive after,
> and I think that the debian-specific files are a good place to start.
Would the place to start not be to make sure that every piece of debian
support
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:58:44AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On the other hand, policy states UTF-8 for Changelog which breaks katie
> > if your name contains accented characters because you're still forbidden
> >
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:58:44AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On the other hand, policy states UTF-8 for Changelog which breaks katie
> > if your name contains accented characters because you're still forbidden
> >
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
[snip]
> > It's probably a good additional point that most of the standard
> > character sets have no © symbol and that there is no legal basis for
> > "(C)" being a valid representation of it.
I always write
Copyright (C) 20xx David W
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> > is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> > would be a nice th
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:58:44AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> (I'm not a Debian developer)
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's probably a good additional point that most of the standard
> > character sets have no ?? symbol and that there is
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
[snip]
> > It's probably a good additional point that most of the standard
> > character sets have no © symbol and that there is no legal basis for
> > "(C)" being a valid representation of it.
I always write
Copyright (C) 20xx David W
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> > is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> > would be a nice th
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:58:44AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> (I'm not a Debian developer)
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:29:59PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's probably a good additional point that most of the standard
> > character sets have no ?? symbol and that there is
y damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section
504(c)(2).
Wether this whole section is applicable to software and its
copyright-files is (for me) hard to tell since this section was written
with tangible works in mind, rather than a mere series of bits and
bytes.
> On the other
y damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section
504(c)(2).
Wether this whole section is applicable to software and its
copyright-files is (for me) hard to tell since this section was written
with tangible works in mind, rather than a mere series of bits and
bytes.
> On the other
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
> Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> would be a nice thing to have...)
>
There exists no policy for this; therefore common sense take
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 18:44, Joel Baker wrote:
> Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
> is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
> would be a nice thing to have...)
>
There exists no policy for this; therefore common sense take
Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
would be a nice thing to have...)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
Is it valid to use UTF-8 in the debian/copyright file? (Specifically, it
is possibly to accurately reproduce a copyright symbol, using UTF-8, which
would be a nice thing to have...)
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter
>> is now in the archive. But when looking at the WWW page for
>> maelstrom the changelog and copyright files are the ones from
>> the last version. How can this happen?
Julian> What WWW page? And is it possibly referring to the slink
Julian> or potato d
for maelstrom the changelog
> > and copyright files are the ones from the last version. How can this
> > happen?
>
> What WWW page? And is it possibly referring to the slink or potato
> distribution, or is it perhaps a cached copy you were looking at?
Sorry for being so unpre
On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:41:59PM +, Christoph Baumann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I released a new version of maelstrom about two weeks ago. It is now in
> the archive. But when looking at the WWW page for maelstrom the changelog
> and copyright files are the ones from the last versio
Hi!
I released a new version of maelstrom about two weeks ago. It is now in
the archive. But when looking at the WWW page for maelstrom the changelog
and copyright files are the ones from the last version. How can this
happen?
Christoph
--
* Christoph Baumann
Shaleh writes:
> We do not need more files floating around. Perhaps the author has an opinion
> on this?
Of course it can be changed if the author approves. If he doesn't, though,
you would be altering his license.
it's only 18k and this situation isn't likely to come up very often.
--
John
On 02-Feb-99 John Hasler wrote:
>> I am working on a package that is GPLed, but the author
>> pre-pends his own disclaimer just before the GPL.
>
>> If I just copy the copyright file into the package's doc dir,
>> lintian emits an error. (obviously).
>
>> Should I prune the GPL from the copyrigh
> I am working on a package that is GPLed, but the author
> pre-pends his own disclaimer just before the GPL.
> If I just copy the copyright file into the package's doc dir,
> lintian emits an error. (obviously).
> Should I prune the GPL from the copyright file and say that the
> software is dist
On 01-Feb-99 Mark Ng wrote:
>
> I am working on a package that is GPLed, but the author
> pre-pends his own disclaimer just before the GPL.
>
> If I just copy the copyright file into the package's doc dir,
> lintian emits an error. (obviously).
>
> Should I prune the GPL from the copyright file
I am working on a package that is GPLed, but the author
pre-pends his own disclaimer just before the GPL.
If I just copy the copyright file into the package's doc dir,
lintian emits an error. (obviously).
Should I prune the GPL from the copyright file and say that the
software is distrubuted und
65 matches
Mail list logo
