Charles Plessy writes:
> Stefano, as admin of the DEP Alioth project (I think that the others
> retired), would you agree to create a dedicated mailing list for
> DEP-5? I volunteer for the mailman administration, and for taking the
> responsibility that no major changes are discussed there inste
Hi Stephen,
I like the idea and I think that having this role somewhat formalised will
help achieving it goals.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
for DEP-5[0].
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
The story so far, in a very rough summary:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 13:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Stefano, as admin of the DEP Alioth project (I think that the others retired),
> would you agree to create a dedicated mailing list for DEP-5? I volunteer for
> the mailman administration, and for taking the responsibility that no major
> ch
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few comments:
- Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more annoying
to use than writing a
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> > development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
>
> A few comments:
> - Personally I find the format unn
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> It was just suggested we move the DEP-5 discussions off debian-project.
> I think that would be a mistake. This is something that affects the
> project as a whole, and should therefore be easy for the whole project
> to follow,
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
>>> development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
>>
>> A
On 12.08.2010 16:28, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much t
On 12/08/2010 14:59, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> - Instead of writing such files (and keeping them updated), we should put more
> energy into doing this task automatically. There are various tools to analyze
> licenses automatically, for example from OpenLogic (commercial unfortunately)
> or
> http://f
* Lars Wirzenius , 2010-08-13, 00:45:
The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
* 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 the meaning of "publ
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
[...]
> If there's more issues, please raise them.
It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
can be transl
On Thu, Aug 12 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> - Migrating all packages to the new format is an insane task which
>> would take a *long* time and a lot of work.
> There is no goal to migrat
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > - Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more
> > annoying
> > to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for
> > complicated
>
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
> * 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 the meaning of "public
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> True, but to gain some benefit you'd need a lot of DEP-5'ed packages to
> have something useful to work on. Are there any statistics about the
> number of packages which use DEP5 in d/copyright?
I don't have any hard statistics, but I think the number is already well
over
Dear project,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:59:15PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
> > development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
[...]
> So my opinion in short wo
Craig Small writes:
> I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and
> so very much harder to read. It's especially insane if you have multiple
> authors and where the license stays the same but the copyright years
> change.
I combine all the copyright notices into one b
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
> it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > More importantly, making debian/copyright be machine parseable
> > provides some immediate benefits, without having to wait for a
> > solution to the big, difficult problem.
>
> What are th
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files f
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
> has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
> done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
> for DEP-5[0].
Dear Lars,
Charles Plessy writes:
> It is necessary to let people add comments in debian/copyright. Some
> people have asked for free-form comments and I think that it is a valid
> request.
> Enclosing comments in a DEP-5 fields give extra work since for each line
> a space needs to be added, with a dot if
On to, 2010-08-12 at 10:32 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
> any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
> can be translated into SPDX, and vice versa. [There's no reason for us
> to do all of the hard wo
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
> format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
> file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
Thanks, that's an interesti
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
>> no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
>> distribution as a whole. (In US law, this is called a comp
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The “paragraph” format that is popular in Debian control files does not allow
> the use of free comments. [- - -]
...
> I propose to use a simpler format, that is trivial to parse:
Having debian/copyright use the same file format as debian/
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes:
> > On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> * An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
> >> no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:24:27AM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I would rather not complicate the CD+DVD building process even more to
> > produce non-free images. There are so many images that need to be
> > created already.
>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09:44PM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
> non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5 to make it harder to
> maintain debian/copyright in DEP-5 f
Russ Allbery writes:
> > Would a generic multi-line Comment: field be sufficient?
>
> Yes.
Would an end-line comment syntax, like the one that already works in the
‘debian/control’ file, be sufficient?
If so, then we can avoid diverging from the existing formats in this
regard, and reduce proli
31 matches
Mail list logo
