Hi Submitter and all,
It has been almost a year since the last activity on this Request For
Sponsorship (RFS). Is there still interest in the packaging of zig by the
submitter or others, or can this RFS be closed and the Intent To Package (ITP)
be returned (retitled) to Request For Package (RFP)
* Bastian Germann [230113 18:05]:
> Am 13.01.23 um 03:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
> > This debian/copyright file was originally produced by decopy and I
> > adjusted it wherever I found problems. I hesitate to change things that
> > I do not know to be wrong, at the risk of introducing errors
I would recommend you install the debian-policy package and review the
documentation on the format of the copyright file at /usr/share/doc/debian-
policy/copyright-format-1.0.html. With that as a reference, I do not find it
difficult to manually edit copyright files.
On Thursday, January 12,
Am 13.01.23 um 03:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
This debian/copyright file was originally produced by decopy and I
adjusted it wherever I found problems. I hesitate to change things that
I do not know to be wrong, at the risk of introducing errors simply to
reduce the number of lines in the file.
* Bastian Germann [230104 02:20]:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
> > > d/copyright
> > > ===
> > > Please use more wildcards so you do not have to list so many files.
> > This is where it gets tricky for me. As I understand it the last match
>
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
d/copyright
===
Please use more wildcards so you do not have to list so many files.
This is where it gets tricky for me. As I understand it the last match
in d/copyright file is the one that applies. So for example,
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
The repackaging comment does not only go for musl but also the other
3rd party components.
Striping out the bundled source would change Zig drastically and would
make both producing and maintaining this package much harder. I think
that the bundled
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
Should I also reupload to mentors?
You can skip that. Just notify me and the RFS bug when you want to trigger
another review.
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
Ok. I haven't been able find a definitive short version of the CC0
license. There seem to be some variations checking
/usr/share/doc/*/copyright on my system. Can you suggest what I should
use for this?
License: CC0
On Debian systems, the full text
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
Checking the files themselves I see that for
most files third clause does indeed specify University of California,
Berkeley and its contributors. However there are a handful of others
that specify different people in the clause 3 and have
Am 15.12.22 um 06:40 schrieb Nick Hastings:
I'd be more than happy to move it to salsa, but thought it was only
available for DDs/DMs. I see now that that is incorrect. I registered an
account and it seems to be pending approval.
In the mean time I've made a debian directory in the repo and
Hi Bastian,
* Bastian Germann [221219 06:22]:
> A quick note before I forget it: llvm-toolchain-13 is on its way out of
> Debian.
> Can we make this package use the unversioned (default, currently v14)
> llvm packages or v15?
The cmake setup is quite specific about needing v13 so changing it
A quick note before I forget it: llvm-toolchain-13 is on its way out of Debian.
Can we make this package use the unversioned (default, currently v14) llvm
packages or v15?
Hi,
thought it may be a little while until I could dig into this but
actually found the time today. So here's another quick update.
* Nick Hastings [221216 13:15]:
> Hi,
>
> quick update.
>
> * Nick Hastings [221215 14:40]:
>
> > * Bastian Germann [221215 08:57]:
> >
> > > Your package fails
Hi,
quick update.
* Nick Hastings [221215 14:40]:
> * Bastian Germann [221215 08:57]:
>
> > Your package fails to build from scratch on amd64 with a test fail
> > (maybecaused by wrong pwd?):
> >
> > [100%] Built target zig
> > make[2]: Leaving directory
Hi Bastian,
* Bastian Germann [221215 08:57]:
>
> Thanks for draft package.
No problem, thanks for looking at it.
> Let's go for 0.9 and when that is in we'll see what version can be
> packaged next.
Great.
I've filed an issue about the problems I have building 0.10.0 on the Zig
github but
Hi Nick,
Thanks for draft package. Let's go for 0.9 and when that is in we'll see what
version can be packaged next.
I have reopened Thr RFS bug. Please have that in copy during the discussion so other sponsors can pick up if I am not
repsonsive.
In general it is a good idea to put your
Hi,
quick progress report.
* Nick Hastings [220615 14:20]:
>
> * Adam Borowski [220603 23:34]:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 09:38:37AM +0900, Nick Hastings wrote:
> >
> > Worst news first: the copyright file requires a lot more work. I see for
> > example unlisted Khronos stuff
Hi Adam,
wow, this is unfortunate - gmail flagged this as spam and I only just saw
it now. So please don't interpret my late reply as being from a lack of
motivation.
* Adam Borowski [220603 23:34]:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 09:38:37AM +0900, Nick Hastings wrote:
> > * Package name: zig
>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 09:38:37AM +0900, Nick Hastings wrote:
> * Package name: zig
> * URL : https://github.com/ziglang/zig
> * License : Expat, Apache-2, Apache-2 with LLVM exception,
> CC0, BSD-2-Clause, and LGPL-2+
> * Vcs :
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zig":
* Package name: zig
Version : 0.9.1-1
Upstream Author : Andrew Kelley
* URL : https://github.com/ziglang/zig
* License : Expat, Apache-2,
21 matches
Mail list logo
