On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> As far as I know, I don't have a single package for which a
>> copyright field applies 6to all files in the source package (I might
>> have missed one, but I think not).
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package,
>>> without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that
>>> specified
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:59:34AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>>
>>> The current DEP5 draft says:
>>>
>>> * **`Files`**
>>>* Required for all but the first paragraph.
>>> If omitted from the f
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package,
>> without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that
>> specified in DEP5 format? Implying that a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think at this point, we have to solve other problems with policy and
devref, and having solved them the correct outcome for DEP5 will become
obvious.
> - if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use "debian/rules
> get-orig-source"
Sinc
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> If we do put the stripping information into debian/copyright, can
> someone please suggest a concrete way to actually do that? What is
> actually needed to implement the stripping automatically in
> get-orig-source?
A free-form field into which I can put things like:
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
> source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
> debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-devel
> about whether repackaging just to remove distributable-but
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:05:12PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files
at the same place as distributed files.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyri
* Lars Wirzenius [100913 19:05]:
> On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files at
> > the same place as distributed files.
>
> On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyright to
> document co
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 08:59:34AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The current DEP5 draft says:
* **`Files`**
* Required for all but the first paragraph.
If omitted from the first paragraph,
this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
* Synt
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 09:06 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Currently, one only needs to list the copyrights in the package,
> without specifying which file each copyright applies to. How is that
> specified in DEP5 format? Implying that all copyright notices apply to
> all files would
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files at
> the same place as distributed files.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyright to
document copyright information of files that are not par
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 23:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> >
> > That took more than a couple of days, but I've now merged the changes
> > and pushed them out to the bzr trunk.
>
> Hi Lars, and bzr experts,
>
> I do not know wha
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:53:47 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> * **`Files`**
>* Required for all but the first paragraph.
> If omitted from the first paragraph,
> this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
>
> Does anyone oppose if I remove the "If omitted..." sentence? I see no
> reason t
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:19:48 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> X-Autobuild was a poor choice. My current opinion is that, unless there
> is an interest to parse a specific field, it it better to use existing
> ones, in that case Comment or Disclaimer.
Agreed, Disclaimer should fit the purpose of exp
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The current DEP5 draft says:
>
> * **`Files`**
>* Required for all but the first paragraph.
> If omitted from the first paragraph,
> this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
>* Syntax: white space separated list
>* List of patterns i
On Mon, Sep 13 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The current DEP5 draft says:
>
> * **`Files`**
>* Required for all but the first paragraph.
> If omitted from the first paragraph,
> this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
>* Syntax: white space separated list
>* List of patterns i
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:03:00PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
From the DEP5 wiki page:
Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-de
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:58:32PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The current DEP5 draft has this paragraph:
For a ''non-free'' package to be autobuilt, `debian/copyright` must
contain an
explanation that autobuilding is not forbidden (see
[20061129152824.gt2...@mails.so.arg
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:53:47PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The current DEP5 draft says:
* **`Files`**
* Required for all but the first paragraph.
If omitted from the first paragraph,
this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
* Syntax: white space separated list
* List of patterns
Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:03:00PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> My opinions:
>
> - if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use "debian/rules
> get-orig-source"
> - otherwise, debian/README.Source seems like a better place to document
> this than debian/copyright, since it has o
Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> That took more than a couple of days, but I've now merged the changes
> and pushed them out to the bzr trunk.
Hi Lars, and bzr experts,
I do not know what happened, but the dep bzr repository is not visible
anymore through th
Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:58:32PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> The current DEP5 draft has this paragraph:
>
> For a ''non-free'' package to be autobuilt, `debian/copyright` must
> contain an
> explanation that autobuilding is not forbidden (see
>
> [20061129152824.g
>From the DEP5 wiki page:
Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-devel
about whether repackaging just to remove distributable-but-not-d
The current DEP5 draft has this paragraph:
For a ''non-free'' package to be autobuilt, `debian/copyright` must
contain an
explanation that autobuilding is not forbidden (see
[20061129152824.gt2...@mails.so.argh.org](http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/2
006112915
The current DEP5 draft says:
* **`Files`**
* Required for all but the first paragraph.
If omitted from the first paragraph,
this is equivalent to a value of '*'.
* Syntax: white space separated list
* List of patterns indicating files covered by the license
and copyright s
On ti, 2010-09-07 at 06:24 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Nobody has commented on this in any way, so I assume I am still perfect
> and everything I say is flawless. I am attaching a proposed patch to
> rewrite the filename pattern section. Unless there are objections within
> a couple of days, I w
27 matches
Mail list logo
