Re: PAPT ML is flooded with spam

2010-10-25 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:39, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What is the point in the PAPT ML that is full of spam? > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-apps-team/2010-October/thread.html I don't find it "full of spam", maybe because I use a spam filter on my client (gmail, the same as

PAPT ML is flooded with spam

2010-10-25 Thread anatoly techtonik
What is the point in the PAPT ML that is full of spam? http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-apps-team/2010-October/thread.html Should it be moved from Alioth to lists.debian.org or just redirected here? http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2010/10/threads.html -- anatoly t. -- To UN

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:32, anatoly techtonik wrote: > Got it. Thanks. One last question: > > Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any > upstream changes? > I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package > management tools. if it's just for debia

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > debian/README.Debian-source > might be good too, but given a tarball is (usually) repacked for legal > reasons, d/copyright seems a better place since "it's the file where > legal stuff is" that is true, BUT debian/copyright is to describe terms and con

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread anatoly techtonik
Got it. Thanks. One last question: Can I upload the new version of a package what doesn't contain any upstream changes? I want to see how added debian/watch is picked up by various package management tools. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread W. Martin Borgert
Quoting "anatoly techtonik" : Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new release? In this case the maintainer (I) was too lazy/sloppy/whatever to document it properly or add a debian/rules target to do the repac

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 20:06, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright > > well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in > contrib or non-free. For details on what was done

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote: > No: if it's been repacked, it should be stated in debian/copyright well, Disclaimer in debian/copyright serves to describe why software in contrib or non-free. For details on what was done to sources I usually use (when I do not forget ;)) debian/README.

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Chow Loong Jin
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 02:00 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wr

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Mikhail Gusarov
Twas brillig at 20:51:49 25.10.2010 UTC+03 when techto...@gmail.com did gyre and gimble: at> Does that mean that I need to figure out why tarball was repacked at> and manually repack it again with the same changes to do new at> release? http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/t/trac-b

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 19:53, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >>> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: What dfsg suffix in package version is for? In

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Chow Loong Jin
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:51 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: >> On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >>> In trac-bitten to be exact. >> >> It means that the tarball wa

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread anatoly techtonik
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> What dfsg suffix in package version is for? >> In trac-bitten to be exact. > > It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. > > [1] http://www.debian.or

Re: dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread Chow Loong Jin
On Tuesday 26,October,2010 01:45 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What dfsg suffix in package version is for? > In trac-bitten to be exact. It means that the tarball was repacked to meet DFSG[1] requirements. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin

dfsg suffix

2010-10-25 Thread anatoly techtonik
What dfsg suffix in package version is for? In trac-bitten to be exact. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=hbnxh64obf+2nrhd+kwxgn

Re: Wheezy plans

2010-10-25 Thread Matthias Klose
On 23.10.2010 13:26, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Fr, 2010-10-22 at 14:18 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Oct 22, 2010, at 07:52 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote: Tell that the Arch people: http://www.archlinux.org/news/python-is-now-python-3/ Yep, they switched /usr/bin/python to Python 3.X

Re: question about packaging a python-based software that ships a shared object library file

2010-10-25 Thread Filippo Rusconi
Hello Paul, On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:53:04AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > I'm doing what you propose with fonttools and I like the solution. > > If upstream is shipping it as a private extension, keeping it that way > is a good idea. Great, then, I'll package the software this way and let you