Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On 27 Apr 18:55, Noah Slater wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: [...] Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. Hmm, interesting! Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote: *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd. Neither do I, does that make me odd too? By all means comment on how I or anyone elses uses lists, but you have no right to tell me how I should organise my own mailbox. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Le Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:36:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 08:41:14PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:42:04PM +, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : Hi Maintainer, rejected, i think we are missing the source for the pdf in doc/. Almost two monthes of waiting to read this… What was the license on the PDF in question, and was the license documented in debian/copyright? Hi Steve (and Cyril), the package was rejected because of missing source, not for license issues. Nevertheless, if you are curious about what debian/copyright contained, here is the relevant extract: Files: doc/phyml_manual.pdf, debian/phyml_manual.tar.gz.uu Copyright: © Copyright 1999 - 2008 by PhyML Development Team License: formerly free for academic only, but relicenced on the upstream website. The software PhyML is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. In no event shall the authors or his employer be held responsible for any damage resulting from the use of this software, including but not limited to the frustration that you may experience in using the package. The program package and this documentation, are distributed free of charge for academic use only. Permission is granted to copy and use programs in the package provided no fee is charged for it and provided that this copyright notice is not removed. X-Comment: After discussion with the upstream maintainer, the documentation was relicenced and an updated version was published on the upstream web site with the following the new disclaimer: . The software PhyML is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. In no event shall the authors or his employer be held responsible for any damage resulting from the use of this software, including but not limited to the frustration that you may experience in using the package. . This relicencing also affects the version shipped in this package, and the documentation will be updated with the next upstream release of PhyML. Since there is no licence but only a disclaimer, I conclude that the PDF file is licenced under the same terms of the rest of phyml, namely the GNU GPL. If, in a package that has a general license statement, there are files for which an explicit reminder of the statement is strictly required to prove their freedom, then I would like to see it documented somewhere. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On 2009-04-26, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Dude, chill out. Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. regards, Holger, who tries to mentally ignore being annoyed by cc:s but fails on this way to often... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:27:03AM +, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2009-04-26, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Dude, chill out. Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. It seems we have different ideas about what makes something interesting. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. I think it's a broken requirement. I am aware that it exists, and when I remember it, I try to follow it. However, there are some major problems: * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. * I don't know much about mailing list software, so I'm not going to be as bold as to suggest I know what the solution is. However, on all the other lists, I never get duplicate copies of email when people reply to me with an unnecessary CC. Perhaps they are intelligently filtering out recipients from the mailing list software? * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:39:15 +0100 Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org napsal(a): * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. Definitely not the only one which mandates this. * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! See http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttLists, part Lists' technical. (Most email clients do have this feature, Mutt was chosen because of User-Agent field in your email.) -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. regards, Holger, who tries to mentally ignore being annoyed by cc:s but fails on this way to often... If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Best, Michael pgpZGOIZ69YuQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 01:39:15PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, meaning that by default my email client wants to send replies to individual posters. To get the mailing list included in the reply means that I have to reply to all. It's a very easy mistake to make, not to remember to manually shuffle these addresses around each time I want to send a follow up. Don't make me think! I don't mean to continue the argument, but I see that you are using Mutt. If that is the case, I am certain that it would not take you too much effort to use list-reply (`L', by default). I ask you to do this not because you don't follow list protocol, but you make it difficult for others as to follow it; for example, by default, when I chose to reply, this mail went to the list and was CC'ed to Holger, because of the strange way the headers came from your mail! Do you use the lists and subscribe keywords for this list in your muttrc? Thanks. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Noah Slater wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:27:03AM +, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2009-04-26, Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Dude, chill out. Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. It seems we have different ideas about what makes something interesting. I hope we all agree that bluring a thread by discussing a Code of Conduct which is unfortunately ignored by people from time to time is not interesting at all and I hope you can continue discussing this on curiosa if you are not able to provide real context to the topic. On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: I have re-uploaded to non-free because I am sick of wasting my time with this kind of issue. But since in the rejected package I had taken great care to include uuencoded sources of the PDF and explained this in REAME.source, can you confirm this was not acceptable for Debian and that shipping sources in the Debian diff is not enough? If you ask me things are quite clear: From a Debian point of view the source includes *.orig.tar.gz, *.dsc and *.diff. The files are connected via md5sum in *.dsc. So shipping the source of a PDF in the diff should be acceptable from a Debian point of view (even if it would be nice to have it i nthe upstream source). It makes sense to document this in README.Source (as you did) AND debian/copyright (I don't know whether you did). I see no real reason for rejecting in your case. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Dear lazylist, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? regards, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: * The Debian lists are the only lists I have ever come across that mandate, or even care, about such a thing. I have been on many lists in my time, and my current list of mailing list subscriptions stands at 73. On every single other list, this isn't a problem, and things just work. Definitely not the only one which mandates this. I was careful to specify that in my experience, it was the only one I have come across to mandate this. I am sure that there are other lists with a similar policy. My point was that it is uncommon, and hence something I actually have to remember. In a way, it gets in the way of me sending email because it's trying to enforce a technical change via social means, which seems doomed to failure. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:51:01AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: I don't mean to continue the argument, but I see that you are using Mutt. If that is the case, I am certain that it would not take you too much effort to use list-reply (`L', by default). I ask you to do this not because you don't follow list protocol, but you make it difficult for others as to follow it; for example, by default, when I chose to reply, this mail went to the list and was CC'ed to Holger, because of the strange way the headers came from your mail! Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists, which as you can see, doesn't happen very often. In my last email, I made a subtle reference to the following book: The book's premise is that a good program or web site should let users accomplish their intended tasks as easily and directly as possible. Krug points out that people are good at satisficing, or taking the first available solution to their problem, so design should take advantage of this. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Make_Me_Think If we find something that works, we stick to it. Once we find something that works—no matter how badly—we tend not to look for a better way. We’ll use a better way if we stumble across one, but we seldom look for one. - http://www.sensible.com/chapter.html Anyway, this is my way of saying that a thousand previous mailing list responses have taught me to send group replies. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. The Debian lists try to force me into thinking about the type of reply I should send, and inevitably fails more often than not. It doesn't fail because I'm stupid. I understand the theory behind it, and will apologise when people politely remind me. Instead, it fails because I'm human, lazy, and error prone. And it seems I'm not the only one. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Montag, 27. April 2009, Noah Slater wrote: * The Debian lists do not have a Reply-To header, does someone know why? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html From that page: Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make reply back to the list easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate reply commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail command has had this for about a decade. Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate r)eply and g)roup-reply commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the r key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit g instead. Piece 'o cake. If you include the Reply-To header, then responses go back to the list with no duplicated carbon copies. This page is recommending that this isn't necessary because all good mail clients have a group reply option. But Debian forbids the group reply function because this ends up adding unnecessary carbon copies. So it seems you cannot have your cake and eat it! Either you avoid Reply-To because it is harmful and accept that you will get carbon copies from the commonly implemented group reply function of modern mail clients, or you include the harmful Reply-To header and avoid it. What am I missing? This seems too obviously flawed an argument. Best, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: Definitely not the only one which mandates this. Please list others so I can mock them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Hi Dne Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:06 + Clint Adams sch...@debian.org napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote: Definitely not the only one which mandates this. Please list others so I can mock them. For example Mutt lists I mentioned. I saw the same rule in Frugalware and Ubuntu does not mandate this, but they tell you to use Reply To List function. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
+ Noah Slater (Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:10:17 +0100): Yes, I know the L command, but thanks for pointing it out! My argument is that I have to remember to use when I am replying to the Debian lists I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: folder-hook . bind index r reply folder-hook . bind pager r reply folder-hook . bind index L list-reply folder-hook . bind pager L list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind index r list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind pager r list-reply folder-hook =l/debian bind index L reply folder-hook =l/debian bind pager L reply Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:48:50PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: I fully agree with this. I think having to remember which key one must use in each context for reply is lame. This is why I do in my ~/.muttrc: [...] Where l/debian is the folder which contains Debian lists, and it allows to always use 'r' to reply to mail. Hmm, interesting! Unfortunately, I don't use folders so I don't think this will work for me. Thanks, -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: C. Only supported by a handful of clients A number of clients won't automatically generate the header, but may still support it for group replies. I think this might include Evolution and Thunderbid (although it was a while since I tested this so I might be wrong) when doing a group reply. IIRC Thunderbird use to have a reply to list command, but I can't find it anymore :-(. -- Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 27 avril 2009 à 14:44 +0200, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : If you're annoyed by cc:s (well, Holger, I know you are, you told me about that more than once :-) ), configure your mailclient to set Mail-Followup-To and hope for the next poster's mailclient to support that header. Which actually means that, to a certain degree, those annoyed by cc:s could themselves do something about it. Mail-Followup-To is: A. Useless junk without clear semantics B. Violating standards C. Only supported by a handful of clients D. Obi-wan Kenobi says: “All of the above” http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. People who object to Mail-Followup-To even though it precisely addresses this problem and would be perfectly suitable as a basis for standardization are: a) wankers b) obstructionists c) on Dick Cheney's payroll d) profit -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 08:41:14PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:42:04PM +, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : Hi Maintainer, rejected, i think we are missing the source for the pdf in doc/. Almost two monthes of waiting to read this… What was the license on the PDF in question, and was the license documented in debian/copyright? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:35:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Perfectly well defined. An interesting riposte for those arguing the opposite IETF angle. If adherence to standards is so important, surely it's a net win if we respect the intended semantics of Reply-To while simultaneously embracing the Mail-Followup-To header. I don't see how you could argue one, without the other. :) -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 14:05 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Montag, 27. April 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: Interestingly you did it again, ignoring the list Code of Conduct. As it sadly happens many times every day. And as long as there are no means to enforce it (either pure social or aided by technology), it will continue to happen. Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org ? William signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Le Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:42:04PM +, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : Hi Maintainer, rejected, i think we are missing the source for the pdf in doc/. Almost two monthes of waiting to read this… I have re-uploaded to non-free because I am sick of wasting my time with this kind of issue. But since in the rejected package I had taken great care to include uuencoded sources of the PDF and explained this in REAME.source, can you confirm this was not acceptable for Debian and that shipping sources in the Debian diff is not enough? I have put -devel in CC because it is probably a useful information for other developers. Bonus question: after we shift to the version 3.0 (quilt) of the source packages, will it be acceptable or not that a file from one tarball has its source in another one? -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On So, 26 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: rejected, i think we are missing the source for the pdf in doc/. Almost two monthes of waiting to read this… I have re-uploaded to non-free because I am sick of wasting my time with this kind of issue. But since in the rejected package I had taken great care to include uuencoded sources of the PDF and explained this in REAME.source, can you confirm this was not acceptable for Debian and that shipping sources in the Debian diff is not enough? I would be surprised and a bit shocked if including the source of a doc in the diff would not be enough. Bonus question: after we shift to the version 3.0 (quilt) of the source packages, will it be acceptable or not that a file from one tarball has its source in another one? Same same. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining prein...@logic.atVienna University of Technology Debian Developer prein...@debian.org Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- BOOKThere is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexeplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. --- Introduction to Fit the Seventh. --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
Charles Plessy char...@plessy.org (26/04/2009): But since in the rejected package I had taken great care to include uuencoded sources of the PDF and explained this in REAME.source, can you confirm this was not acceptable for Debian and that shipping sources in the Debian diff is not enough? JFWIW, I guess you want license-related stuff to go into debian/copyright, rather than README.source. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 04:01:31PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Charles Plessy char...@plessy.org (26/04/2009): But since in the rejected package I had taken great care to include uuencoded sources of the PDF and explained this in REAME.source, can you confirm this was not acceptable for Debian and that shipping sources in the Debian diff is not enough? JFWIW, I guess you want license-related stuff to go into debian/copyright, rather than README.source. Actually, I would use debian/copyright for simply specifying licences, and debian/README.source to explain how the source files have been prepared, exactly like Charles is doing. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Noah Slater nsla...@tumbolia.org (26/04/2009): JFWIW, I guess you want license-related stuff to go into debian/copyright, rather than README.source. Actually, I would use debian/copyright for simply specifying licences, and debian/README.source to explain how the source files have been prepared, exactly like Charles is doing. What if you actually check the contents of README.source? Quoting it[1,2]: | The manual contains a non-free statement but was relicenced by Upstream, see | http://phyml.googlecode.com/files/phyml_manual_11March2009.pdf That pretty much sounds like clarifying a license issue. Exactly why I said it should have gone to debian/copyright instead, so that people checking licenses might have a clue. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2009/03/msg00041.html 2. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/phyml/ Now, you say Charles explain how the source files were prepared, that's not even correct. The other part is: | The sources of the PDF manual are uuencoded in debian/phyml_manual.tar.gz.uu. I | asked one the upstream maintainer to include them in the same tar archive as | PhyML itself. That doesn't say what license applies, where it was downloaded from, etc. Charles, please note I'm not challenging what you did, only Noah's wild claims. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff? (was: Re: phyml_20081203-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 06:03:07PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: FIRST: GO AWAY WITH YOUR STUPID CC'S. I OBVIOUSLY READ THE LIST. Dude, chill out. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
