Your message dated Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:02:15 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#594656: fixed in debian-policy 3.9.2.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #594656,
regarding debian-policy: Refer generically to the Debian distribution
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Guillem Jover writes:
> The attached patch fixes all relevant references to the Debian
> distribution (or system) by removing references to the particular
> GNU/Linux system.
> I've left two references to Debian GNU/Linux as they are historical.
Thanks, applied.
--
Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi!
The attached patch fixes all relevant references to the Debian
distribution (or system) by removing references to the particular
GNU/Linux system.
I've left two references to Debian GNU/Linux as they are histo
Your message dated Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:32:03 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#65577: fixed in debian-policy 3.8.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #65577,
regarding [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a part
of Debian distribution
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead
>> of here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
>> question is how to handle the fact that it makes contrib and n
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:04:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead of
> > here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
> > question is how to handle the fact that
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead of
> here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
> question is how to handle the fact that it makes contrib and non-free
> packages instabuggy; this is a real chic
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Below is a revised patch that puts the text into section 12.5 instead of
> here and simplifies the language a little. I think the major open
> question is how to handle the fact that it makes contrib and non-free
> packages instabuggy; this is a real chi
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> === the proposed patch on sgml for this modification ===
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig Tue Jun 13 10:00:17 2000
> +++ policy.sgml.proposed Tue Jun 13 10:05:22 2000
> @@ -189,6 +189,12 @@
> provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-trackin
Dear Debian,
I'm new italian user of your system.
I would to distribuite Debian woody to another people but what I find part
of your packages with non-free software for ask then autorization for
distribution?
Sincerly,
Santo Caruso
---
Santino "skyweb" Caruso
Membro CS-LUG (Cosenza Linux User G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. Software in non-us was not developed inside the US and should
> not be restricted to 'export' into other countries.
Lots of stuff in non-us was developed in the US.
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I
> write to all three lists to get to the right people.
>
> Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
>
> I suppose there has been debate on this subject be
I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I write to all
three lists to get to the right people.
Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
I suppose there has been debate on this subject before on other debian lists,
but as I'm not subscribed to more than
Hi.
On "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:04:02 -0400",
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be
> > also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ?
>
> No. Not really.
OK, I see.
> > What I wish to see is more e
> Do you think that "All the packages in the other sections" should be
> also modified to "All the packages in non-free or contrib sections" ?
No. Not really.
> What I wish to see is more explanation for users. Many ordinary users
> are not specialists in license. In many cases, they may not und
Brian May wrote:
> Seeing as everything seems to be going XML these days, why not:
Why? Copyright files are already unapproachable enough with their legal
jargon. Why add markup on top of that?
> However, why stop at the license? Perhaps the same thing could be
> done with other information, eg r
> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> Copyright: non-DFSG Copyright-non-freeness: # Brief
Julian> details of non-freeness here Copyright-Details: # field
Julian> with copy of copyright
Julian> Comments?
Seeing as everything seems to be going XML the
retitle 65557 [Amended] copyright should include notice if a package is not a
part of Debian distribution
thanks
stop
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at "Sat, 17 Jun 2000 02:39:37 -0400",
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > D
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 03:18:12PM -0700, Brian F. Kimball wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> > License: GPL
> > License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> What if the license doesn't have a n
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Copyright: Joe Programmer and Bob Hacker, 1996-1999
> License: GPL
> License-details: see /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
What if the license doesn't have a name?
> >
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > I would suggest a file with fields like the control files, something
> > like (comments with #'s):
>
> > Package: foo
> > Debianized-By: Debian Maintainer <[EMAIL P
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 12:15:49PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I would suggest a file with fields like the control files, something
> like (comments with #'s):
> Package: foo
> Debianized-By: Debian Maintainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debianized-When: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:09:09 +0100 # output of
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:10:00AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> > it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> > one file.
> > Cheers, aj
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> one file.
> Cheers, aj
I think it could be interesting if this part of the file could be
parsed. I thin
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ditto; leaving it in copyright also makes it easy to remember to change
> it if the license becomes more free in the future: you're just editing the
> one file.
Actually, I had never thought of it that way, but it is true. I have had
a package go from non-free to free, a
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:35:17PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:59:15AM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> > I think that an explanation of the choice of section in the Debian archive
> > in which the package appears is more closely related to the contents of
> > the copyright fil
ME.* file that has been proposed will
contain nothing more than the following:
This package cannot be included in the official Debian distribution
because its license allows redistribution only when "no commercial
prof
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:59:15AM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> I think that an explanation of the choice of section in the Debian archive
> in which the package appears is more closely related to the contents of
> the copyright file than what is currently being placed by maintainers in
> the README.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> > So I think to use README.Debian is appropriate.
>
> I disagree. Often README.Debian is used for more general things, such
> as explaining how a package is configured when built (compile-time
> options), how the Debian package differs from other versio
> Thanks to your consideration on this proposal, and sorry to be late in
> answering.
[ ... ]
> Well, what I wish to target with this proposal, is "let our users know
> more about the packages which they use".
[ ... ]
Thank you for your explanation. I have a better understanding now of
* wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
programs,
(Ah, maybe the last comma "," in the potato version should be changed
into a period ".", isn't it ?)
So it is enough to show the name of the software or other materials which:
is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Taketoshi Sano) writes:
> With this consideration, I propose the modification of our policy below.
[ ... ]
> 2. The Debian Archive
> -
[ ... ]
> In order to avoid to be misconstrued, All the packages
> in the other sections than _main_ s
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
Having read the recent thread on our several mailing lists,
I think that we should note more cleatly what is Debian distribution
and what is not a part of Debian distribution.
The current policy document itself clearly states that
&quo
33 matches
Mail list logo
