Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:59:11PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
>
> [Lars Wirzenius]
> > * a "Comment" field would be good
> > * license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
> > and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
> > current thread on
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> * a contact point within Debian for upstreams to use
...
> For the second thing, I propose an "upstream front desk" of some sort.
> Stefano, in his role as the DPL, agreed that it would be good. The UFD
> would be the point of first contact
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Thanks, Charles, for pointing that out. That page does, indeed, have
> much overlap with my UpstreamGuide page. They should be merged -- and
> since UpstreamGuide is newer, it should be merged into GettingPackaged.
> Maintenance and improve
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:43:36PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> The SPDX people are collaboration with other projects, including Fedora,
> on this right now. Steve and I discussed it and he'll join the SPDX
> mailing list to represent us, and will relay any concerns and updates.
> (I don't
Charles Plessy writes:
> 1) The Policy may change independantly of the DEP.
> I think that the DEP should indicate the version of the Policy it refers
> to, not only in the – however improbable – case that a change is
> introduced to the syntax of Debian control files, but also in case
> editori
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I can definitely see the desire for this metadata, but it feels to me
>> like it would be better tracked in a separate file, such as Charles's
>> proposed upstream metadata file.
> In current practice, many
Le Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:16:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Ideally, though, you should be able to just reference
> the specification of the Debian control file format in Policy. Any
> deficiencies in that specification that lead you to want to add additional
> information in DEP-5 for t
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> gregor herrmann writes:
> > I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
> > their modules in Debian. Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in
> > d/copyright (or somewhere else but I don't know a better p
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 06:18:01AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> About renaming it: I feel it would be better to be explicit that it's an
> upstream thing. Thus, Upstream-Maintainer or Upstream-Contact, and
> perhaps also renaming Name: to Upstream-Name: at the same time. What do
> others think?
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:09:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> gregor herrmann writes:
> > I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
> > their modules in Debian. Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in
> > d/copyright (or somewhere else but I don't know a better place)
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:00:12PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> >If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking
> >program to check the globbing. returns
> >
>
> Except that DEP5 only covers source.
> Would still m
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:16:49AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> perhaps too much effort. Since the list really should be shared with
> other projects (SPDX and Fedora especially), it would perhaps make most
> sense to refer to it instead of incorporating it in the spec.
>
> I would, however, kee
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the
> files of this stanza. Not all copyright notices may apply to every
> individual file, and years of publication for one copyright holder may
> be gat
This is an early notice about plans for "Git User's Survey 2010",
which is planned to be open from 1 September to 15 October 2010.
I am sending an announcement early because I would like to ask you
if you want to add some question to the survey, or add answer to
an already present multiple-choice
On la, 2010-08-14 at 15:05 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > -The `debian/copyright` file must be machine-interpretable, yet
> > -human-readable, while communicating all mandated upstream information,
> > -copyright notices and licensing details.
>
> The rest is good, but I like
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Actually, I am starting to think that maintaining a long list of license
> shortnames in DEP-5, many of which refer to rarely used licenses, is
> perhaps too much effort. Since the list really should be shared with
> other projects (SPDX and Fedora especially), it would p
On la, 2010-08-14 at 16:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> After looking at http://spdx.org/licenses/, I realise that the very
> existence of a license list in DEP-5 is in question (not in this thread).
> However, since I had a version of the DEP with a more comprehensive use
> of web links for lice
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> (The existing
> section is giving requirements for the syntax of the file, such as
> human-readability, which was appropriate at the beginning of the
> development of the spec, but I think we don't need that in the spec
> anymore.)
> -The `debian/copyright` file must be mac
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> There's a number of cases where the Debian source package name differs
> from the name upstream uses. For example, Iceweasel. On the other hand,
> is it useful to track that? Perhaps not.
Specifically, is it useful to track it in a machine-parseable format?
We already have
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 06:25:59AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
So we have at least three suggestions on the table now:
1. Rename Maintainer: to Contact:
2. Rename Maintainer: to Upstream-Contact: and Name: to Upstream-Name:
3. Drop both Maintainer: and Name: completely, even as optional fields
On la, 2010-08-14 at 19:56 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Lars Wirzenius
>
> | On la, 2010-08-14 at 14:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> | > Where is this bzr repository
> |
> | http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep5/trunk/
> |
> | I don't know bzr.debian.org provides a web interface. I will, howev
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:16 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Proliferation of file formats is a bug, not a feature, when you're trying
> to make things readable by software.
Indeed.
> I believe most of these issues are already addressed by referring to the
> syntax description in Policy with the excep
On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:54 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Similarly, the Name field is not data that policy requires be in
> debian/copyright. On my latest read of DEP5, I thought this was
> completly redundant with the already redundant source package name in
> the changelog, control file, etc.
There'
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On the other hand, the field currently known as Maintainer: is already
> optional, so it's OK to leave it out, and when it's useful to, say,
> pkg-perl, it can be added. Russ, since you objected to it, what do you
> think?
> About renaming it: I feel it would be better t
On la, 2010-08-14 at 11:18 -0400, gregor herrmann wrote:
> I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
> their modules in Debian.
> Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in d/copyright (or somewhere
> else but I don't know a better place) we are not able to provide a
> m
On la, 2010-08-14 at 10:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
...
> How about this (written without looking at the detailed wording of the
> document, so may need some massaging to fit into the flow):
FWIW, I like Steve's patch and Russ's addition to it. Anyone object to
them?
]] Lars Wirzenius
| On la, 2010-08-14 at 14:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
| > Where is this bzr repository
|
| http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep5/trunk/
|
| I don't know bzr.debian.org provides a web interface. I will, however,
| make the latest revision be automatically published so everyone can
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:39:26PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Charles Plessy [2010-08-15 00:20 +0900]:
If consensus converges on using a ‘similar to’ keyword, I will submit
a patch.
I see the problem you want so solve and I'm unsure if a such a keyword
addition would finally make DEP-5 eas
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:18:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> I would prefer to stick to a Debian control file format, since
>> otherwise implementing DEP-5 aware checks in tools like Lintian is
>> going to be more painful than it needs to be.
> I will come back wi
gregor herrmann writes:
> I remember CPAN maintainers (sic!) being interested in the status of
> their modules in Debian. Without a Maintainer (or whatever) field in
> d/copyright (or somewhere else but I don't know a better place) we are
> not able to provide a mapping for that.
I can definite
Charles Plessy writes:
> similarly to Lars' proposition to recycle the License and Copyright
> fields in the header, how about using the Disclaimer and Name fields for
> your purposes?
> Disclaimer:
> All individual files with no other license statement are released
> under this license. Some
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:13:57PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
>> We should say explicitly that the copyright field is a rollup of all
>> relevant copyright declarations for that group of files, yes.
> Russ, can you suggest some language around this? "rollup" just conjure
* Charles Plessy [2010-08-15 00:20 +0900]:
> Le Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:26:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey a écrit :
> >
> > Shouldn't it be mentioned in the licenses description that the expat
> > license sometimes wrongly is referred to as MIT license?
>
> I wonder if the tradition of using the “Expat” n
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:07:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
But really If you believe it is enough to state in debian/control
that the work is GPLv2, then that is just as possible using DEB5,
with the following statement:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
If this does make it in, someone should write a file checking program
to check the globbing. returns
Except that DEP5 only covers source.
Would still make sense to have a program doing similar for source:
returns
- Jonas
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > The purpose of the ‘Maintainer’ field is to provide a contact address
> > for the users of the software. But for some projects, the primary
> > corresondance address is not necessarly the developer's email
> > address. It can be a helpdesk, or a
Le Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:26:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey a écrit :
>
> Shouldn't it be mentioned in the licenses description that the expat
> license sometimes wrongly is referred to as MIT license?
Hi Carsten,
I wonder if the tradition of using the “Expat” name to refer unambiguously to
one of the
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:25:39 +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2010-08-13 at 20:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Am I missing some other Debian document somewhere that says we should be
> > providing upstream contact information in debian/copyright?
> There's also the Homapage: field in the p
* Charles Plessy [2010-08-14 16:58 +0900]:
> After looking at http://spdx.org/licenses/, I realise that the very
> existence of a license list in DEP-5 is in question (not in this thread).
> However, since I had a version of the DEP with a more comprehensive use
> of web links for licenses, I propo
Hi,
thank you for addressing this old suggestions :)
* Charles Plessy [2010-08-14 11:29 +0900]:
> Renaming the Format-Specification field:
>
> ...
>
> Carsten Hey (and perhaps others) also questionned if the field should
> be required and if it should contain an URL:
> http://lists.debian.org/200
Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:14:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> * A comment field in the header section into which I can put statements
> like:
>
> All individual files with no other license statement are released
> under this license. Some files have additional copyright dates from
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:19:13AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Also it should be possible to say something like "this package is licensed
> under
> license FOO, but with the following exceptions" - and then add a field which
> takes a longish text with the exceptions.
As Jonas stated, you can do
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:39:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, there seems to be a quite common misconception that the presence of
> syntax in DEP-5 that lets you list the copyright and license of individual
> files means that it is a *requirement* that you list the license status with
>
After looking at http://spdx.org/licenses/, I realise that the very
existence of a license list in DEP-5 is in question (not in this thread).
However, since I had a version of the DEP with a more comprehensive use
of web links for licenses, I propose the attached patch anyway.
I also propose the a
44 matches
Mail list logo
