Bug#771191: Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

[Russ Allbery]

Fabian Greffrath  writes:
> Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES:

>> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... 

> Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman!

Er, no, it's not just a picture of a woman.  It's a cropped Playboy
centerfold.  In other words, it's a porn shot (if one from the fairly
artistic side of that spectrum) that's been cropped to remove the explicit
sexual content.  The image itself is one thing; the surrounding context of
the image makes it a bit worse.

Obviously, in terms of great problems facing the world, this isn't the
worst.  But having the standard test picture for image software be a porn
image does send certain messages, and they're probably not messages that
we (by which I mean the general software and tech industry as a whole)
actually want to be sending.  This is not a problem of Debian's creation,
and we can't fix the world, but insofar as we can contribute to not
sending those messages, I think that makes the world, and Debian, a better
place.

Thank you very much to Reinhard for doing the irritating and tedious work
of starting to replace it.  It feels like a distraction from other work
and a thankless task, I know, but small things like this really do make
people happier and help people in tiny ways.  Software became a bit less
off-putting, a bit less locked into a particular model of how genders are
"supposed" to interact, and a tiny bit more welcoming.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87388xywh0@hope.eyrie.org

Bug#771750: [lintian] rename dep5-copyright tags to copyright-1.0

[Jakub Wilk]

Hi Chris!

* Chris Knadle , 2014-12-01, 21:12:
Lintian currently refers to "dep5" copyright issues and tags, but the 
"DEP-5" references have been deprecated in favor of "copyright 1.0":


  https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

so these tags could be renamed as "copyright 1.0" (or "1.x"), which I 
think would make them more clear.


Renaming Lintian tags is not something that should be done lightly. Some 
people might have overridden the tags; others might have put them in 
their private Lintian profiles.


For similar reasons, it's a bad idea to put version number of the 
specification in the tag name.


And "copyright 1.0" doesn't seem more clear to me at all. If anything, 
we should do s/dep5-copyright/machine-readable-copyright/.


--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141203101516.ga7...@jwilk.net

Bug#771191: Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2014-12-03 08:56:41)
> Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES:
>> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... 
>
> Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman!

I disagree with you.

Honestly, when you mentioned you'd replaced with a photo of your own, I 
got very curious and checked if you'd made a self-portrait posing 
similarly - looking over your shoulder and into the camera with an 
invitation in the eyes.  You chose food.

Had you done that (in an honest attempt, inspired by but without making 
fun on the original), your comment now would have more meaning to me.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#771191: Bug#771126: Bug#771191: Bug#771126: libav/tests/lena.pnm: also not mentioned in debian/copyright

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-12-03 11:33:17)
> Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2014-12-03 08:56:41)
>> Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Bastien ROUCARIES:
>>> And offencive (sexist) for 50% of the population the women... 
>>
>> Now it's getting really ridiculous. Gosh, it's a picture of a woman!
>
> I disagree with you.
>
> Honestly, when you mentioned you'd replaced with a photo of your own, 
> I got very curious and checked if you'd made a self-portrait posing 
> similarly - looking over your shoulder and into the camera with an 
> invitation in the eyes.  You chose food.
>
> Had you done that (in an honest attempt, inspired by but without 
> making fun on the original), your comment now would have more meaning 
> to me.

Whoops - sorry: I mixed up you and Reinhard. :-(


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#766375: lintian: false positive with arch-qualified build-depends

[Wookey]

+++ Niels Thykier [2014-11-04 07:10 +0100]:
> On 2014-11-04 03:58, Wookey wrote:
> > +++ Niels Thykier [2014-10-22 20:25 +0200]:
> >> [...]
> >>   In particular, it is not clear to me whether (e.g.) "pkg:$arch"
> >> implies "pkg:any" or/and "pkg" (or/and vice versa).
> > 
> > I don't think pkg:$arch implies anything except pkg:$arch
> >  
> 
> This is where we have our first disagreement and one of the reasons why
> I want someone to sit down and document this stuff.  Since pkg:$arch
> installs an instance of pkg (for some architecture), then surely it
> would satisfy pkg:any at the same time.

OK. I understand your question now. Yes you are probably right. I'll
have to have a think about that.
 
> Lintian relies on "pure logic" when determining when a dependency is
> satisfied (unlike dpkg/APT, which look up the "target" package).  We
> also use it to determine if the maintainer "screwed up" and duplicated a
> package in his/her dependency field.
> 
> Example:
> 
>   (Build-)Depends: pkg:any, pkg:amd64, pkg:i386, pkg:native, pkg
> 
> Is there any redundancy in the above line?  I am guessing "pkg:any" at
> least "pkg:any", but as I said "guessing" - and I do not like to guess
> on semantics of a dependency resolver.
> 
> Keep in mind that even after you have done this, I get to solve the
> above question when versions etc. gets mixed into the line, like:
> 
>   (Build-)Depends: pkg:any, pkg (>= 1.0)
> 
> Here, (*I* suspect) it should probably just have been a "pkg:any (>=
> 1.0)", but again - I am guessing...
>
[...] 
> 
> I am looking for documentation rather than code to reverse-engineer.
> Without any documentation clarifying how these relations interact, we
> will end up with 3+ implementations each doing it their own way with
> their own interpretations.

apt tries very hard to follow whatever dpkg does to avoid exactly this
problem. dpkg is the ultimate arbiter. Probably best to get the dpkg
maintainers to express an opinion here (cc:ed to the list)

I quite agree that we are missing proper documentation of this in
policy and it is now long overdue. I hope to find some time to at
least draft something soonish (when I get out from under current
cross-compiler faffage).

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141203145325.gr27...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk

Bug#771750: [lintian] rename dep5-copyright tags to copyright-1.0

[Chris Knadle]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:15:16AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Hi Chris!

Hi Jakob!  :)

> * Chris Knadle , 2014-12-01, 21:12:
> >Lintian currently refers to "dep5" copyright issues and tags, but
> >the "DEP-5" references have been deprecated in favor of "copyright
> >1.0":
> >
> >  https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> >
> >so these tags could be renamed as "copyright 1.0" (or "1.x"),
> >which I think would make them more clear.
> 
> Renaming Lintian tags is not something that should be done lightly.
> Some people might have overridden the tags; others might have put
> them in their private Lintian profiles.

Shucks!  I forgot about this -- thanks for pointing it out.

> For similar reasons, it's a bad idea to put version number of the
> specification in the tag name.

Yes I see that.

> And "copyright 1.0" doesn't seem more clear to me at all. If
> anything, we should do s/dep5-copyright/machine-readable-copyright/.

machine-readable-copyright seems clearer to me too.

  -- Chris

--
Chris Knadle
chris.kna...@coredump.us


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014120315.ga5...@anan7.coredump.us

Bug#766375: lintian: false positive with arch-qualified build-depends

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 14:53:25 +, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Niels Thykier [2014-11-04 07:10 +0100]:
> > I am looking for documentation rather than code to reverse-engineer.
> > Without any documentation clarifying how these relations interact, we
> > will end up with 3+ implementations each doing it their own way with
> > their own interpretations.

This will be documented with the patch from #768842 once dpkg 1.18.x
opens up. If there's information that you think it's not clear or not
covered there, please say so, and I'll add it.

Thanks,
Guillem


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141203154611.ga13...@gaara.hadrons.org