Re: RFS: acsccid (New Upstream Release)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Godfrey Chung wrote: I sent the e-mail to Secure Testing Team at home tonight. Hope that they can receive my e-mail. Thanks! I've added your changes to SVN. If yourself or anyone else wants to get involved in tracking security issues in Debian, please take a look at this page: http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/data/report -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6e06hj-ra3s662dlohpnnagtb-e0vkxss3eahtzko8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: libpam-abl , bug fix , package is already in Debian
On 01/21/2012 03:02 PM, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: On 01/20/2012 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Alex Mestiashvilia...@biotec.tu-dresden.de, 2012-01-16, 20:16: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.2-2.dsc The changelog says debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed, but 0.4.2-1 had already this field. What do you mean by other architectures (in the patch header)? Hi Jakub , It failed to built on many archs - https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libpam-abl With this patch it suppose to be better , but I agree that the description sounds ambiguous. I've uploaded a new version with the corrected description . Assuming that the patch header was meant to follow DEP-3, then please note that the Description field is supposed to be like Description in debian/control: there are two parts, short and long one (though the latter is optional). But let's go to more important things. This: printf(PAD %s (%lu)\n, buf, (unsigned long)data.size / sizeof(time_t)); is surely better than: printf(PAD %s (%ld)\n, buf, (long int)data.size / sizeof(time_t)); (which you had in the previous version). But to be pedantically correct, it really should be: printf(PAD %s (%zu)\n, buf, (size_t)data.size / sizeof(time_t)); I also modified changelog such a way that line debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed appears in the correct section , but I have some doubts if it is ok to edit old changelog sections . That's fine with me. I see , your version is better . But the upstream has released a new version which fixes this and other problems . I hope that shape of the package is good enough . http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.3-testing.1.dsc Thank you for taking care , Alex I've re-uploaded the package with fixed version string : http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.3+testing.1-1.dsc Regards , Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23d778.80...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
RFS: python-gnatpython [fourth try]
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-gnatpython. * Package name: python-gnatpython Version : 54-1 Upstream Author : AdaCore sa...@adacore.com * URL : http://forge.open-do.org/projects/gnatpython * License : GPL-2+ and GPL-3+ Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-gnatpython - python framework to ease development of test suites python-gnatpython-doc - python framework to ease development of test suites (examples) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-gnatpython Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gnatpython/python-gnatpython_54-1.dsc This new package is a build dependency for the polyorb package. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. It is my first python package and I have followed most advices from Jakub Wilk [1], Simon Chopin [2] and Nicolas Boulenguez thanks to them. After the following lintian command : lintian --pedantic -EI python-gnatpython_54-1_amd64.changes the package still presents the following I/P comments : I: python-gnatpython source: debian-watch-file-is-missing P: python-gnatpython: no-upstream-changelog P: python-gnatpython-doc: no-upstream-changelog P: python-gnatpython-doc: example-unusual-interpreter usr/share/doc/python-gnatpython-doc/examples/echo_testsuite/run-test #!gnatpython Since there isn't any changelog in upstream and the source are only available under a subversion repository I don't know how to fix the first three comments. And since the fourth is a P comment and present in an example I don't think it's worth the work to fix it. Kind regards, Grave Xavier [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/09/msg00078.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/01/msg00396.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23d76c.9050...@ipno.in2p3.fr
Re: RFS: ipset
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Joseph R. Justice wrote: wouldn't it be more reasonable to use 3.0.y as the next Debian stable release's kernel? I mean, sure, if many of the other major Linux distributions, the ones which can be considered as peers to Debian in terms of importance, collectively decide to use a different, later kernel version for their next stable release, it would make sense to use that kernel for Debian's next stable release of course, since it allows the effort of maintaining the kernel to be shared between distributions (at least to some extent). But, failing that, why not use the one that has the imprimatur of the existing defacto stable kernel maintainer? Please refer to this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2011/12/msg6.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2012/01/msg00254.html If you have more questions about that, please ask the Debian Linux kernel team. I read those threads. I see they're considering the points I'd raised (and others I hadn't, as well). Fair enough; can't ask for more than that. Thanks for the pointer! (I don't currently receive that list, d-kernel.) Joseph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAC58tq-__OY1aLBM6ys2DP=wkffbqjrntcmzc3pyzbjjerq...@mail.gmail.com
Flash in debian
Hi there, what are the chances to get packages into debian main that contain (mainly) Flash code? Its mostly ActionScript 3 code which cannot compiled with tools from debian main (mtasc is only capable of AS2), flex-sdk is not in debian at all. The source would be included (and GPL, MIT or BSD) and the precompiled swf would be in the packages. -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/de/pgpkey.html Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23ec2f.1020...@camlann.de
Re: Flash in debian
Sounds like a very bad idea. How would you compile it then? how would you port it to some crazy system, for example itanium who knows? mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de wrote: Hi there, what are the chances to get packages into debian main that contain (mainly) Flash code? Its mostly ActionScript 3 code which cannot compiled with tools from debian main (mtasc is only capable of AS2), flex-sdk is not in debian at all. The source would be included (and GPL, MIT or BSD) and the precompiled swf would be in the packages. -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/de/pgpkey.html Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23ec2f.1020...@camlann.de -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caf0qkv0unqlccrbolnbwh-dtptie+zjcn6xzhi+3cvo3tto...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de writes: what are the chances to get packages into debian main that contain I doubt that, everything in main needs to be buildable with tools in main. What tools can build this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/84ipjwkn7q@sauna.l.org
Re: Flash in debian
Am 28.01.2012 13:41, schrieb Mike Dupont: Sounds like a very bad idea. How would you compile it then? how would you port it to some crazy system, for example itanium who knows? swf run in the Flash-Browser-Plugin and are not tied to some architecture of some crazy machine. As long as there is a Flash-Runtime, an swf can be executed. A free runtime would be gnash. -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/de/pgpkey.html Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23f3a3.3000...@camlann.de
Re: Flash in debian
Am 28.01.2012 13:47, schrieb Timo Juhani Lindfors: I doubt that, everything in main needs to be buildable with tools in main. What tools can build this? flex-sdk would be able to build this - ITP: 602499 There is no way to build swf from ActionScript 3 in debian, but many (if not most) web-applications use flash in some extend to provide services to there users (eg. file upload, video embedding, svg emulation). All of them have to be crippled in functionality or not distributed in debian at all... -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/de/pgpkey.html Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23f493.3090...@camlann.de
Google Code and debian/watch
Hi, has someone a working debian/watch for files on code.google.com? My old lines do not work anymore since an longer time, e.g.: version=3 http://code.google.com/p/videocut/downloads/list \ http://videocut.googlecode.com/files/videocut_(.*)\.tar\.gz -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Google Code and debian/watch
Hi Patrick, For libgoogle-gson-java I use version=3 http://code.google.com/p/google-gson/downloads/list?can=1 \ .*/google-gson-(\d[\d\.]*)-release\.(?:zip|tgz|tbz2|txz|tar\.gz|tar\.bz2|tar\.xz) On 28.1.2012 14:25, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Hi, has someone a working debian/watch for files on code.google.com? My old lines do not work anymore since an longer time, e.g.: version=3 http://code.google.com/p/videocut/downloads/list \ http://videocut.googlecode.com/files/videocut_(.*)\.tar\.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23f997.9030...@ktknet.cz
Re: Google Code and debian/watch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/28/2012 02:25 PM, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Hi, has someone a working debian/watch for files on code.google.com? My old lines do not work anymore since an longer time, e.g.: version=3 http://code.google.com/p/videocut/downloads/list \ http://videocut.googlecode.com/files/videocut_(.*)\.tar\.gz This one works well for us version=3 opts=\ downloadurlmangle=s|.*[?]name=(.*?).*|http://gobible.googlecode.com/files/$1|,\ filenamemangle=s|[^/]+[?]name=(.*?).*|$1| \ http://code.google.com/p/gobible/downloads/detail[?]name=gobiblecreator-([0-9.]+).tar.gz.* Note: Some lines will be cut up in this mail. Teus. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPI/vuAAoJEI7ACCcMVgeWP9oP/AmoExskxoBh+co8BVbdXrLI 5gqT94/8LgXLjJJN/5qJv2GBZ3ZcA0nPxvvzzmVemXxDTr8aR4ty+Dj7fC1X6ZbJ 3Z7/0po9EcRaF0VqQvjpRVPk08Fo6GCVUReEpvvzlpafxg0VPyuaFhCe7qCzw4Hu rugk5Yev4jZ63NFXZ1O0kwqXZL2BWv0qPw/mWUu6mWtemJxNnIMP/uKYCBD9CVdd 9urZSLP4liKUG9UcfZ5sypT7nVLqlnBYrHJN8zqO7B1RpH4s/IXDAuvxVr5BQ2Ud DVKqqHJCaBU8V6Q6O6URY8VKvt9dy2UODtmPJYFo6wrlOQ51hwUPGVLMpZfPtrmh f/QojYMuHlVqXy+AWv7B17vDgji2zYbio6jQdElH3UgIEu6JoVme4KnGOJ1Ne//p AV+BR2AaHAegp0rrgLLHtavu6UaSa5H35pz4yeQMEjVI1GhoLWxlY4yLBuEz7j2v NMuEfDUyOQzGzaZvrfKM2I90M5QNW1lox8rGkmSh+S79t+bzPiyD/NWdrlybo9VS gvj0aaSRDCl//SkjeubwJdHiC3eYm8/moXPCwUyXzV7UxwEI4/wTM4Dsy3NiUGwb r2xABJp4J5i+kLyFhwf2Do3ppjPQwWwEC9IfOAVKJ48Ku6KFwzPuFQL2W91Hj8Gl +GkdWgrdOaGgA9ZH6yqX =vaip -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23fbee.10...@gmail.com
Re: Google Code and debian/watch
Am 28.01.2012 14:25, schrieb Patrick Matthäi: has someone a working debian/watch for files on code.google.com? My old lines do not work anymore since an longer time, e.g.: Take a look at this: http://googlecode.debian.net/ -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: http://www.camlann.de/de/pgpkey.html Fingerprint: 4F50 19BF 3346 36A6 CFA9 DBDC C268 6D24 70A1 AD15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2400d3.4050...@camlann.de
Re: RFS: python-gnatpython [fourth try]
Hi,
I looked at your package and there are still some problems:
- python-gnatpython does not have Privides: ${python:Provides}, it
would be good to have it for packages depending on python-gnatpython
and one version of python
- doc package has this: Suggests: gnatpython, i guess it should be
python-gnatpython
- both pacages have Priority: standard, it should be changed to
optional
Also program names under /usr/bin sound to generic for me. Perhaps they
could be prefixed with something... Also I cannot understand what is
that opt-parser for... Is it needed for something or is it just a test
script for gnatpython.optfileparser? In the second case it could be
removed from the package.
Regards,
Eugeniy Meshcheryakov
28 січня 2012 о 12:09 +0100 xavier grave написав(-ла):
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package python-gnatpython.
* Package name: python-gnatpython
Version : 54-1
Upstream Author : AdaCore sa...@adacore.com
* URL : http://forge.open-do.org/projects/gnatpython
* License : GPL-2+ and GPL-3+
Section : python
It builds those binary packages:
python-gnatpython - python framework to ease development of test suites
python-gnatpython-doc - python framework to ease development of test
suites (examples)
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/python-gnatpython
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-gnatpython/python-gnatpython_54-1.dsc
This new package is a build dependency for the polyorb package.
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
It is my first python package and I have followed most advices from
Jakub Wilk [1], Simon Chopin [2] and Nicolas Boulenguez thanks to them.
After the following lintian command :
lintian --pedantic -EI python-gnatpython_54-1_amd64.changes
the package still presents the following I/P comments :
I: python-gnatpython source: debian-watch-file-is-missing
P: python-gnatpython: no-upstream-changelog
P: python-gnatpython-doc: no-upstream-changelog
P: python-gnatpython-doc: example-unusual-interpreter
usr/share/doc/python-gnatpython-doc/examples/echo_testsuite/run-test
#!gnatpython
Since there isn't any changelog in upstream and the source are only
available under a subversion repository I don't know how to fix the
first three comments. And since the fourth is a P comment and present in
an example I don't think it's worth the work to fix it.
Kind regards,
Grave Xavier
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/09/msg00078.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/01/msg00396.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ada-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f23d76c.9050...@ipno.in2p3.fr
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libconfig (requires transition)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27/01/12 19:23, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24:56 +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Please don't change the -dev package name. All of the packages except one have versioned Build-depends on libconfig8-dev. Surely this needs to be replaced with libconfig-dev or at least libconfig9-dev? No it doesn't? You can rename the -dev package to libconfig-dev if you want, but certainly don't *need* to, and if you do it, then it would be way better from our point of view to keep building libconfig8-dev as a transitional package until the reverse deps are updated, and to do that separately from the SONAME bump. If its ok, I'll leave the package as is. To clarify, what is the process for this transition? Will the package be uploaded to experimental to allow me to report bug reports and patches against dependant packages? Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPJA2HAAoJEJ6XA7Whh53b4OYIAIK+xBiOsVDMEufwF94shlGK YYhkRhpxtDiYuu+upm5AIN1WDCGlmq617kUSE8tCui1dgQFdXmOP9geXjsXViBCl DHTi1UDxjmZ278AanhKd0tIiYdmWrSk7hsBFRh0HpFx2eUjnv4xutuuyB18DRbEI jVvR56nNwTKpRgki6A+Eh0SwX1xe8tRku+1zYlOnUiOqs5PchRHe14uOhEYDs4qP x4vhC1VxjvIBkKNSleSBjJJp87BYnTD/sWoQ7gjIUo/gUsi7Lt1NUZySi+M6SEd1 7olD5CgBuDnTk8uOtl+F9C72O/nR1mDGE3erRbi00Ksa9oFYQH2uVcVmFshIzM8= =GQyP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f240d87.3050...@gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
We are not just talking about running here. people need to have the freedom to change the code, and not be tied to some vendor. we need to have all the sources needed to be able to compile all the tools needed to change the code. I will not support any debian package that can only be changed on windows with some adobe software. I hope that is clear, this idea will not get far. Proprietary software has very short legs around here. mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de wrote: . As long as there is a Flash-Runtime, an swf can be executed. A free runtime would be gnash. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAF0qKV04Ccf4hsq=am7xbs+fhzbvf6wpcq4x7xzdeho7pei...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: We are not just talking about running here. people need to have the freedom to change the code, and not be tied to some vendor. For Debian Main, not non-free. we need to have all the sources needed to be able to compile all the tools needed to change the code. the flash game might be free. It could be the case that this can live in contrib. I will not support any debian package that can only be changed on windows with some adobe software. Me neither. Please read section 5 of the Debian social contract[1] And I quoth: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. I hope that is clear, this idea will not get far. Proprietary software has very short legs around here. Not in Non-free. Also, he never said anything about the flash being proprietary. mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de wrote: . As long as there is a Flash-Runtime, an swf can be executed. A free runtime would be gnash. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAF0qKV04Ccf4hsq=am7xbs+fhzbvf6wpcq4x7xzdeho7pei...@mail.gmail.com [1]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qsejnozzzt3hf1ukwhdpvw+ezezxppakb+vvaumbc7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: acsccid (New Upstream Release)
Dear Kilian Finally, my package acsccid 1.0.3-1 had been reviewed by Paul and I had modified the package according to his comment. You may be busy at this moment. Please take a look of my package as soon as possible. I would be glad if you uploaded my package for me. Regards Godfrey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CDE4B10737FB4D8C881849F513F8926F@grasshopper
Re: Flash in debian
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de wrote: Am 28.01.2012 16:01, schrieb Mike Dupont: I hope that is clear, this idea will not get far. Proprietary software has very short legs around here. Neither ActionScript 3 (ECMAScript) nor flex-sdk nor the tools i have in mind are propertary. flex-sdk is licensed unter MPL 1.1, the tools are all GPL/MIT/BSD. The problem is, that the MPL-licensed flex-sdk is not (yet) packaged for debian (see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602499) ok then, so get those packaged first or package them up with your modules and I will review them mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caf0qkv3mcdp+ibp7uhcz3kjlodttf+s-vocb0sguofatxd9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
On 2012-01-28 17:14:46 +0100 (+0100), Christian Welzel wrote:
[...]
flex-sdk is licensed unter MPL 1.1
[...]
It's actually the above assertion which is in question and in the
process of being verified, based on my reading.
The problem is, that the MPL-licensed flex-sdk is not (yet) packaged
for debian
[...]
And it appears the submitter of that ITP is in contact with Adobe as
of a few weeks ago to hopefully resolve contradictory licensing
statements. IF flex-sdk does turn out to be MPL as suggested, then
your package might be suitable for contrib until such time as
flex-sdk enters main. It would probably make more sense to just wait
and see how that discussion with Adobe plays out first though.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128162442.gd...@yuggoth.org
Re: Re: RFS: dmaths
Hi Jakub, Thanks, I like the new .orig.tar more. I do wonder however, what happened to debian/dmaths.patch. Good! This patch changes seem unnecessary: If not running, nothing happens. The elimination is in debian/changelog Are these files mini_memo_dmaths_1.5.odt memo_OOo_dmaths_1.5.odt Lisez-moi.odt install.odt used for anything? If they are not, I'd appreciate if you could remove them from .orig.tar, too. It'll make future reviews easier. I have reviewed: no reference to them in macros files. I've deleted them (in the script for repackaging). The package is updated now in debian mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dmaths/dmaths_3.4.2 +dfsg1-1.dsc Thank you for your interest. Regards! I. De Marchi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1327768395.1171.7.ca...@debian.demarchi.org
Re: Flash in debian
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:24, The Fungi fu...@yuggoth.org wrote: On 2012-01-28 17:14:46 +0100 (+0100), Christian Welzel wrote: [...] flex-sdk is licensed unter MPL 1.1 [...] It's actually the above assertion which is in question and in the process of being verified, based on my reading. The problem is, that the MPL-licensed flex-sdk is not (yet) packaged for debian [...] And it appears the submitter of that ITP is in contact with Adobe as of a few weeks ago to hopefully resolve contradictory licensing statements. IF flex-sdk does turn out to be MPL as suggested, then your package might be suitable for contrib until such time as flex-sdk enters main. It would probably make more sense to just wait and see how that discussion with Adobe plays out first though. The people from Adobe never gave me a solid answer. I was told probably, most likely we made a mistake in the license file, which we've done in the past, but let me get back to you. Then they turned the whole project over to Apache. The issue was also two-fold. Not only was the wrong license file in the binary distribution, but the binaries can't be built from source on Debian. I would LOVE to be proven wrong, but I suspect that it's not going to be feasible to build a flex-sdk binary from source until after Apache is done absorbing the project and cleaning it up. As it stood from Adobe, you had to get the source from SVN, but it was full of 1) binaries, 2) forked versions of standard Java libs, and 3) outdated versions of standard Java libs. All of these things were required in some mix to get the thing to build, and all of them are problematic. Adobe builds their binaries in a very specific cygwin environment, from what I've been able to discern. So I've given up on my contact at Adobe, who has rarely ever replied to me at all, and never with more than a few vague words. I'm waiting on Apache to clean up the project to where we can finally build it in a sane way in Debian. I had a version of the flex-sdk package that was not built from source, but just used Adobe's binaries and put them all in a path that lintian didn't like. It's the only way I was able to get any success with the thing in it's Adobe-provided state. Nobody would sponsor it. --Joey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cad0gtav2nt_xhg8utgaqayahzmw4pjbmv5y8at1dmzuhpor...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
Am 28.01.2012 17:24, schrieb The Fungi: your package might be suitable for contrib until such time as flex-sdk enters main. It would probably make more sense to just wait If the packages cannot build their swf from source in lack of flex-sdk they can be uploaded to contrib, as long as all sources are included and the licenses are compatible, can't they? Is it possible for a package in main to depend/suggest on a package in contrib (non-free)? -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: pub 4096R/5117E119 2011-09-19 Fingerprint: 3688 337C 0D3E 3725 94EC E401 8D52 CDE9 5117 E119 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f243545.1090...@camlann.de
Re: Flash in debian
On 2012-01-28 08:50:32 -0800 (-0800), Joey Parrish wrote:
[...]
As it stood from Adobe, you had to get the source from SVN, but it
was full of 1) binaries, 2) forked versions of standard Java libs,
and 3) outdated versions of standard Java libs. All of these
things were required in some mix to get the thing to build, and
all of them are problematic. Adobe builds their binaries in a very
specific cygwin environment, from what I've been able to discern.
[...]
Certainly doesn't make me want to use Flash for anything I write
(not that there's any shortage of other reasons to feel that way
already).
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128180934.ge...@yuggoth.org
Re: Flash in debian
Well in general I would opposed including any sources that cannot be built using free and approved tools, that is basically saying there is no source, or no means to get from source to binary. lets imagine that you have rebol, a language that has no specification and no source code, you can release a rebol package and say : it is free software , but you should not be able to make a free debian package with that in my humble opinion because it would no be buildable. also, we are on the mentors list, are we really going to mentor non-free software and use up our time resources for helping people package non free software? thanks, mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Christian Welzel gaw...@camlann.de wrote: Am 28.01.2012 17:24, schrieb The Fungi: your package might be suitable for contrib until such time as flex-sdk enters main. It would probably make more sense to just wait If the packages cannot build their swf from source in lack of flex-sdk they can be uploaded to contrib, as long as all sources are included and the licenses are compatible, can't they? Is it possible for a package in main to depend/suggest on a package in contrib (non-free)? -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: pub 4096R/5117E119 2011-09-19 Fingerprint: 3688 337C 0D3E 3725 94EC E401 8D52 CDE9 5117 E119 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f243545.1090...@camlann.de -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAF0qKV1p1udAZiLbiiytV=gpmuwr8qd9erk8maomb+bgqf+...@mail.gmail.com
automatic dependency generation for ${source:Next-Upstream-Version}
Hi,
(see #657720 for the background details and rationale)
to one of my binary packages I want to add a dependency like
Depends: foo (= ${source:Upstream-Version}), foo (
${source:Next-Upstream-Version})
The question: how to achieve that given that
${source:Next-Upstream-Version} does not exist (and is not trivial to
compute in general)? I want to avoid hard-coding the next upstream
version because then the package is uninstallable whenever a new
upstream version of foo is uploaded (which is not bad in this specific
context, but it requires a sourceful change for the next upload).
I suppose foo (= ${source:Upstream-Version}) does not work because it
will never match for non-native packages, right? Is there something like
foo (upstream version of foo = ${source:Upstream-Version})
I guess this can be implemented using debian/substvars. But I don't want
to reinvent the wheel. I'm probably not the first one with this problem.
Are there any examples how to do that easily?
Joachim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f243f8e.2040...@gmx.de
Re: Flash in debian
Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: also, we are on the mentors list, are we really going to mentor non-free software and use up our time resources for helping people package non free software? Yes, some of us do, when it's something useful. I like having video drivers for my graphics card, for example. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hazfr7sd@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: Flash in debian
On 01/28/2012 02:09 PM, Christian Welzel wrote: A free runtime would be gnash. If swf is AS3 (AVM2), runtime can't be gnash cause it plays AS2 (AVM1) only. Your player would be lightspark if able. http://wiki.gnashdev.org/FAQ#What_should_gnash_play By the way, besides flex-sdk, you might try as3compile from swftools. Swftools has been removed time ago due to unsolved security issues related to xpdf. It might be readded by fixing them or by removing pdf stuff. http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/07/msg00249.html -- Gabriele -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2441a0.1080...@gmail.com
Bug#657783: RFS: haildb 2.3.2-1.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Library implementing InnoDB-like database
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor to upload this NMU, fixing the RC bug #652700. The changes are on a mininum invasive bases, so only the bug is fixed and the standard bumped as there were no changes necessary. Monty Taylor, the current maintainer is not responsive. It builds those binary packages: libhaildb-dbg - Library implementing InnoDB-like database - debug symbols libhaildb-dev - Library implementing InnoDB-like database - dev files libhaildb6 - Library implementing InnoDB-like database - shared library To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/haildb Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/haildb/haildb_2.3.2-1.1.dsc Changes: haildb (2.3.2-1.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. * Add build-depend on libcloog-ppl-dev (Closes: #652700) * Update standards version to 3.9.2, no changes required -- Tobias Frost t...@coldtobi.de Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:42:18 +0100 Best regards, Tobias Frost -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128185230.31274.26767.report...@ithilien.loewenhoehle.ip
Re: automatic dependency generation for ${source:Next-Upstream-Version}
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Joachim Reichel joachim.reic...@gmx.de wrote:
to one of my binary packages I want to add a dependency like
Depends: foo (= ${source:Upstream-Version}), foo (
${source:Next-Upstream-Version})
I usually rely on:
package ( ${source:Upstream-Version}+1~),
package (= ${source:Version}),
Cheers.
--
Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer | quadris...@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/camhuwownnaxeddq1tmetudxyavbuhbzckba03f7c5dq4rfo...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657783: RFS: haildb 2.3.2-1.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Library implementing InnoDB-like database
* Tobias Frost t...@coldtobi.de, 2012-01-28, 19:52: * Update standards version to 3.9.2, no changes required No, no, no. We don't do such things in NMUs. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128191237.ga3...@jwilk.net
Processed: severity of 657783 is important
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 657783 important Bug #657783 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: haildb 2.3.2-1.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Library implementing InnoDB-like database Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 657783: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657783 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.13288020461.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: automatic dependency generation for ${source:Next-Upstream-Version}
Hi,
On 01/28/2012 08:03 PM, Alessio Treglia wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Joachim Reichel joachim.reic...@gmx.de
wrote:
to one of my binary packages I want to add a dependency like
Depends: foo (= ${source:Upstream-Version}), foo (
${source:Next-Upstream-Version})
I usually rely on:
package ( ${source:Upstream-Version}+1~),
package (= ${source:Version}),
after sending the mail I was thinking about
package ( ${source:Upstream-Version}.1)
But + is better than . because it sorts before . (actually + is the
lexicographically smallest character allowed in upstream versions, see
policy 5.6.12).
I wonder about the 1~ though. Isn't
package ( ${source:Upstream-Version}+)
sufficient (and tighter)? (though it looks a bit weird)
(It's not sufficient if upstream adds a ~, but that's probably
unlikely, and I don't see a way to handle that case.)
Joachim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f245062.2060...@gmx.de
Re: Flash in debian
Hi! * Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com [120128 19:14]: Well in general I would opposed including any sources that cannot be built using free and approved tools, that is basically saying there is no source, or no means to get from source to binary. lets imagine that you have rebol, a language that has no specification and no source code, you can release a rebol package and say : it is free software , but you should not be able to make a free debian package with that in my humble opinion because it would no be buildable. That's also the stance of the ftp team: swf-files, even their source is available and licendes under a DFSG-free license, are consider not suitable for main. We regularily reject packages because of that. Usually the source is repacked and the swf files are removed. also, we are on the mentors list, are we really going to mentor non-free software and use up our time resources for helping people package non free software? We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. [..] Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists). Debian Social contract, Number 5. However, if you don't like non-free / contrib software, you are free to ignore the discussions about them. Best Regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128202026.gb32...@melusine.alphascorpii.net
RFS: unetbootin (New upstream release)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package unetbootin. * Package name: unetbootin Version : 568-1 Upstream Author : Geza Kovacs geza0kov...@gmail.com * URL : http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPLv2 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: unetbootin - installer of Linux/BSD distributions to a partition or USB drive unetbootin-translations - translations for the unetbootin distribution installer To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/unetbootin Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unetbootin/unetbootin_568-1.dsc The Git repository is at: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/unetbootin.git;a=summary I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Muneeb Shaikh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f245b7a.7020...@gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
Am 28.01.2012 21:20, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl: That's also the stance of the ftp team: swf-files, even their source is available and licendes under a DFSG-free license, are consider not suitable for main. We regularily reject packages because of that. Is it because of they cannot be build by tools in main or because of other reasons? -- MfG, Christian Welzel GPG-Key: pub 4096R/5117E119 2011-09-19 Fingerprint: 3688 337C 0D3E 3725 94EC E401 8D52 CDE9 5117 E119 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2469ad.2090...@camlann.de
Re: Flash in debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 28.01.2012 22:33, Christian Welzel wrote: Is it because of they cannot be build by tools in main or because of other reasons? just that. Refer to the Debian Policy 2.2.1 [1]. Packages in main must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution. That's why Flash files aren't acceptable for main, as there is no free compiler, nor a free (and complete) interpreter. It's not because the compiled binary format is proprietary. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPJGwFAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNt6WcP/iP7niPf9QC56e7iTPn8zM51 3Is/G0XtF6bH9KybPr8zGTcZZaHGA6BHzDdKyRTwd23OZtSZL1OTMuApYwUIIgey FfT391TQmUPaUk02Iefsi2Hkj2TfIzof+WytKzK8m/+GykcH9KqXV5/1jCDZ15zS iwUZhzV0Zg8E92tLf0+xdnBiT6PTGfsP5x2NQ4HKERuDoOW588YJaTgHgTrvvjNn 59yDT2Jl6xU7xO3YrfKHKTuMAi3RFFJPZADEwtZfNgHyEYYVJq7jlZc5mBu1QQHB UU8mzOmbqp7C9HfM561G+y+OobcjOJ+hM8htMasvPjqhWNIkcPFO3hAzcBl3ViuE Wzsi7fO1LjQaYtqlVwUAtg+5JFVDXkUap+EPmcGCFRFSA6NKxMiAgPgT6NBaIFX2 CTekTCGeiX4GdrU6ScEjUfap1pkWrGl31ntj30TcXODBEEsVHwl6Cd+COH0+kxWK ME77NXgqLqQTiGFVkjvwThB+w9yhWLTBTvE37v9DSD22y3Uhubkzl8Djbea2rXqs zT5Jmr/R7uAMZ4AAHv/Hk36QZRpcaO6OfEQBqMrl042a1L3DYiSRbMyUnv2I8YE7 QXP48/OTrNd/UmezGkKI9JC/YWOZOPwB4rJasIssurkyNZ8UM7MNkRRV+6FIObju vFKAbAtu1VLvh8UzEHHG =it/B -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f246c05.8020...@toell.net
Bug#657393: RFS: skstream/0.3.6-1 [ITA] -- IOStream C++ socket Library
* Stephen M. Webb stephen.w...@bregmasoft.ca, 2012-01-27, 21:26: * debian/rules: add --with autoreconf to regenerate autoconfigury A typo, though I'm not sure which word you had in mind. :P I don't see the typo. I added --with autoreconf to regenerate the autoconfigury (config.guess, config.sub, aclocal.m4, ltmain.sh, libtools, etc). Hmm. Maybe the word autoconfigury exists, but it's certainly the first time I see it. Also, according to minechangelogs, this word doesn't exist in any changelog amongst packages in the archive. I'd rewrite this sentence as: ... to regenerate autotools files. Do you suggest it's better to go whole-enchilada multi-arch? I think it's a low-hanging fruit, but I'm surely not going to force it upon you. I see test failures in my build log: Me too. The tests rely on manually configuring the OS is a specific, non-standard way. Should I just disable the test targets during the build to reduce the noise? All right, most of the failure have reasonable explanation (either they require echo service running or root privileges). But what about: test: tcpskstreamtest::testOpenNonblock (F) line: 189 childskstreamtest.h ? More importantly, since the build process succeeded, does it mean that _any_ build failure would be ignored. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120128224914.ga4...@jwilk.net
Re: Fwd: RFS: gcc-4.5-doc-non-dfsg
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: Samuel, thanks for doing this. However, I'm trying to get gcc-4.5 removed from unstable soonish, so I would like to see this for gcc-4.6 (and 4.7 as found in experimental). Could you do this? Nikita, could you sponsor the package? Sure, that was my real goal anyway; gcc-4.5 just looked lonely without its documentation, and it didn't seem like it would be much more work to do them both than to just do gcc-4.6. I wonder if I should interpret the silence from Nikita as meaning not now, I'm busy? I had been waiting for something from Nikita before uploading anything for 4.6, preferably including some critical feedback, but in the interest of not having everyone wait for everyone else or anything like that, I've now uploaded the following: * Package name: gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg Version : 4.6.2-1~naesten1 Section : doc It builds those binary packages: cpp-4.6-doc - documentation for the GNU C preprocessor (cpp) gcc-4.6-doc - documentation for the GNU compilers (gcc, gobjc, g++) gcc-doc-base - several GNU manual pages gcj-4.6-doc - documentation for the GNU Java tools (gcj, gij) gfortran-4.6-doc - documentation for the GNU Fortran Compiler (gfortran) gnat-4.6-doc - documentation for the GNU Ada 95 Compiler (gnat) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/g/gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg/gcc-4.6-doc-non-dfsg_4.6.2-1~naesten1.dsc I've given it a strange version number again because: 1. I suspect I should probably simplify debian/changelog a lot 2. In contemplating putting debian/copyright in DEP-5 format, I've realized that I'm not sure of the exact copyright/licensing status of anything in the debian/ directory, except: (a) the files that are just lists of other files, which I don't believe are copyrightable (b) the Python script I wrote, because there's a clear notice at the top saying what the status is ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cajyzjmftsmw7kjo6ltg9obwf1epoqzy_c3nmrjqg5qxjuw3...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657783: RFS: haildb 2.3.2-1.1 [NMU] [RC] -- Library implementing InnoDB-like database
Am Samstag, den 28.01.2012, 20:12 +0100 schrieb Jakub Wilk: * Tobias Frost t...@coldtobi.de, 2012-01-28, 19:52: * Update standards version to 3.9.2, no changes required No, no, no. We don't do such things in NMUs. -- Jakub Wilk Fine with me, reverted uploaded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1327795039.29460.6.ca...@ithilien.loewenhoehle.ip
Re: Flash in debian
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Christian Welzel wrote: what are the chances to get packages into debian main that contain (mainly) Flash code? Its mostly ActionScript 3 code which cannot compiled with tools from debian main (mtasc is only capable of AS2), flex-sdk is not in debian at all. The source would be included (and GPL, MIT or BSD) and the precompiled swf would be in the packages. As someone who has worked on Flash stuff in Debian (I maintain mtasc, flasm), I say Flash needs to die in a fire. If you have upstreams who have Flash components, please spend your time working on transitioning them to JavaScript, the new HTML5 tags (audio, video, canvas etc) and other new web technologies (like WebRTC, WAC, W3C Device APIs). Don't waste one moment on Flash, run away as fast as you are able. Of course, everyone is free to work on whatever they want, but I strongly suggest working on Flash is a waste of time. If anyone wants to actively work on killing Flash, check out this site: http://occupyflash.org/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6ec9j6457twf-8lj5owarhearzhqtwvh3_cvwrqtkx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
This is great, I have joined the fight http://occupyflash.org/ mike On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: As someone who has worked on Flash stuff in Debian (I maintain mtasc, flasm), I say Flash needs to die in a fire. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caf0qkv1_vgtukqqdkmk0ydeqesv50znlhvim0mzcxwjzbls...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Flash in debian
Hi Paul, On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:13:34 Paul Wise wrote: I say Flash needs to die in a fire. If you have upstreams who have Flash components, please spend your time working on transitioning them to JavaScript, the new HTML5 tags (audio, video, canvas etc) and other new web technologies (like WebRTC, WAC, W3C Device APIs). Don't waste one moment on Flash, run away as fast as you are able. Thank you for expressing this in such an eloquent and straightforward manner :) I'm with you, wholeheartedly. By the way, do you think SVG worth attention? Of course, everyone is free to work on whatever they want, but I strongly suggest working on Flash is a waste of time. So true. If anyone wants to actively work on killing Flash, check out this site: http://occupyflash.org/ Thanks for the link. Cheers, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201201291845.04087.only...@member.fsf.org
Re: Flash in debian
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: By the way, do you think SVG worth attention? Definitely, historically it wasn't well supported in web browsers, that seems to be improving though. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6eaw1hsufjzu6w1mz0nqjoa3p80yxag2abg788jx9m...@mail.gmail.com
