Re: In-Program documentation
On Die, 04 Sep 2007, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > > Variant 4, probably to be preferred: > > Install it into /usr/share/password-gorilla/ and add only a link from > > /usr/share/doc/password-gorilla, so that they won't be compressed. > > So variant 4 is just variant 1, except that i don't use another install > method. Just "dh_compress -XLICENSE.txt -Xhelp.txt", then appropriate Not even this is necessary, since dh_compress will not compress files in /usr/share/password-gorilla/. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- AASLEAGH (n.) A liqueur made only for drinking at the end of a revoltingly long bottle party when all the drinkable drink has been drunk. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: mediatomb - UPnP MediaServer
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mediatomb". * Package name: mediatomb Version : 0.10.0-3 Upstream Author : Gena Batyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sergey Bostandzhyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Leonhard Wimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://mediatomb.cc/ * License : GPLv2 Section : net It builds these binary packages: mediatomb - UPnP MediaServer mediatomb-common - UPnP MediaServer mediatomb-daemon - UPnP MediaServer The upload would fix these bugs: 440199 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mediatomb - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mediatomb/mediatomb_0.10.0-3.dsc For any prospective sponsors, please remember to include all the previous changes from the changelog and to include the orig tarball when you upload this package. I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- Regards, Andres Mejia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Presse]
Rendez-vous sur le portail web 2.0 nouvelle génération et gagne 500 euros + 1 kit événement aux "WINGS of PHENIX51.BE" http://www.PHENIX51.BE A bientôt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:49:33PM +, Jörg Sommer wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's a little known requirement that packages continue to work after > > /u/s/doc is removed. So it's not allowed to install required files > > there. You could do (2) or (3) with links *from* u/s/d though. > > Where's this written? In the policy? All the packaging requirements and well-accepted recommendations are in policy or otherwise should be :) This one is 12.3: |Packages must not require the existence of any files in |`/usr/share/doc/' in order to function [1]. Any files that are |referenced by programs but are also useful as stand alone |documentation should be installed under `/usr/share//' with |symbolic links from `/usr/share/doc/'. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (04/09/2007): > Where's this written? In the policy? Policy 12.3. -- Cyril Brulebois pgpSkc1fC38kr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: In-Program documentation
Hi! On 9/4/07, Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's a little known requirement that packages continue to work after > > /u/s/doc is removed. So it's not allowed to install required files > > there. You could do (2) or (3) with links *from* u/s/d though. > > Where's this written? In the policy? Debian Policy section 12.3: (...) Packages must not require the existence of any files in /usr/share/doc/ in order to function [78]. Any files that are referenced by programs but are also useful as stand alone documentation should be installed under /usr/share/package/ with symbolic links from /usr/share/doc/package. (...) Note [78]: The system administrator should be able to delete files in /usr/share/doc/ without causing any programs to break. So yes, people can remove /usr/share/doc and the program needs to keep working properly. Best regards, Nelson
Re: In-Program documentation
Hi Justin, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a little known requirement that packages continue to work after > /u/s/doc is removed. So it's not allowed to install required files > there. You could do (2) or (3) with links *from* u/s/d though. Where's this written? In the policy? Bye, Jörg. -- Eine Blume geht über eine Wiese, sieht einen schönen Menschen und reißt ihm den Kopf ab. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lintian warning - configure-generated-file-in-source
On 9/5/07, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the best method to solve this problem? it's a good solution to > > repackage the tar.gz? and in this case I have to add a suffix like > > foo-0.1+dsfg.orig.tar.gz? > > I would first try to contact upstream and ask him to reupload the > clean package. Mention the 'make dist' cmd to them and ask them to use it. Unless automake isn't used, then make dist may not be as useful, in which case, get upstream to fix their make dist. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: kopete-otr
Is there any DD interested/willing to sponsor this package? I'd like to see it in the archive, thanks. On 11/08/07, Francesco Cecconi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear DD, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kopete-otr". > > * Package name : kopete-otr > Version : 0.5-1 > * URL : http://kopete-otr.follefuder.org/ > * License : GPL > Section : net > > It builds these binary packages: > kopete-otr - Off-the-Record Messaging plugin for kopete > > The package is lintian clean. > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kopete-otr > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kopete-otr/kopete-otr_0.5-1.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > > Kind regards > Francesco Cecconi > > -- > Francesco Cecconi ' |BrAnD| ' > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GPG Key ID: 11F6E468 | Debian pkg Maintainer > Key fingerprint = A45A 59F0 15F8 BF5E 41AC 8478 D931 DAA2 11F6 E468 > > > -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Say NO to Microsoft Office broken standard. See http://www.noooxml.org/petition -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
Am Dienstag, den 04.09.2007, 22:37 +0200 schrieb Patrick Schoenfeld: > I'am currently in progress of packaging password-gorilla, which is a > tcl/tk application. Well everything is fine so far, except that the > application contains menu items LICENSE and HELP which rely on files in > the source distribution, which I currently install with dh_installdocs. > So basically I need to make these files available to the tcl/tk scripts. > But how should I do this properly? > > 1) Variant 1: > I could install the files to /usr/share/doc, but not with dh_installdocs > so that they don't get compressed and then link them to the target > directory (/usr/share/password-gorilla). dh_installdocs doesn't compress them. It's dh_compress doing this and you can exclude these files if necessary. Alternatively: Change the link in the documentation to LICENSE to point to copyright or alternatively create a link LICENSE->copyright. And exclude README from being compressed (see dh_compress(1)). I had a very similar problem with xdrawchem and solved it this way (the solution is not yet part of the official Debian package, so don't look into it). Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin Pryzby wrote: > It's a little known requirement that packages continue to work after > /u/s/doc is removed. So it's not allowed to install required files > there. You could do (2) or (3) with links *from* u/s/d though. Well, the program will not stop working. Just a little percentage of the functions available will not work (help and license). But anyways: So you would say that I should do it the other way round? Say: Install the files to /usr/share/password-gorilla and then link them to usr/share/doc? > > Justin > Patrick -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG3clPTKIzE6LY9r8RAqMnAJ92JLRDcvqlGshIAJW0U8jdktoxFwCfU62I pLcns7rWoRjbZkvK6xcYfkM= =8ien -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:37:21PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > Hi there, > > I'am currently in progress of packaging password-gorilla, which is a > tcl/tk application. Well everything is fine so far, except that the > application contains menu items LICENSE and HELP which rely on files in > the source distribution, which I currently install with dh_installdocs. > So basically I need to make these files available to the tcl/tk scripts. > But how should I do this properly? > > 1) Variant 1: > I could install the files to /usr/share/doc, but not with dh_installdocs > so that they don't get compressed and then link them to the target > directory (/usr/share/password-gorilla). > > 2) Variant 2: > Install them to /usr/share/doc AND to the target directory. > > 3) Variant 3: > Install them only to the target directory. > > It seems to me as if variant 1 would be the only that makes sense. But > is this okay? Is there another way to do it? What would you recommend? It's a little known requirement that packages continue to work after /u/s/doc is removed. So it's not allowed to install required files there. You could do (2) or (3) with links *from* u/s/d though. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Norbert Preining wrote: > dh_installdocs does not compress (AFAIR), it is dh_compress. And you can > give dh_compress the -X option to exclude those file from being > compressed. Yeah. When i acutally tested what i meant it revealed that dh_compress - -X would do the trick, not installing in another way. > Variant 4, probably to be preferred: > Install it into /usr/share/password-gorilla/ and add only a link from > /usr/share/doc/password-gorilla, so that they won't be compressed. So variant 4 is just variant 1, except that i don't use another install method. Just "dh_compress -XLICENSE.txt -Xhelp.txt", then appropriate links in debian/link with dh_link and voila? Seems to be the cleanest method to me and is more or less what I wanted to do. You agree with this? Regards, Patrick -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG3cVkTKIzE6LY9r8RAroRAJ9S1fWBIE32A5/zo2IkYZ9s8qtEAgCeMMbM qIwebYBIIW2wSPuI08nIb2w= =Wy/R -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: In-Program documentation
On Die, 04 Sep 2007, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > 1) Variant 1: > I could install the files to /usr/share/doc, but not with dh_installdocs > so that they don't get compressed and then link them to the target > directory (/usr/share/password-gorilla). dh_installdocs does not compress (AFAIR), it is dh_compress. And you can give dh_compress the -X option to exclude those file from being compressed. > 2) Variant 2: > Install them to /usr/share/doc AND to the target directory. > > 3) Variant 3: > Install them only to the target directory. Variant 4, probably to be preferred: Install it into /usr/share/password-gorilla/ and add only a link from /usr/share/doc/password-gorilla, so that they won't be compressed. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- `I think you ought to know that I'm feeling very depressed.' `Life, don't talk to me about life.' `Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to take you down to the bridge. Call that "job satisfaction"? 'Cos I don't.' `I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.' --- Guess who. --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Program documentation
Hi there, I'am currently in progress of packaging password-gorilla, which is a tcl/tk application. Well everything is fine so far, except that the application contains menu items LICENSE and HELP which rely on files in the source distribution, which I currently install with dh_installdocs. So basically I need to make these files available to the tcl/tk scripts. But how should I do this properly? 1) Variant 1: I could install the files to /usr/share/doc, but not with dh_installdocs so that they don't get compressed and then link them to the target directory (/usr/share/password-gorilla). 2) Variant 2: Install them to /usr/share/doc AND to the target directory. 3) Variant 3: Install them only to the target directory. It seems to me as if variant 1 would be the only that makes sense. But is this okay? Is there another way to do it? What would you recommend? Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lintian warning - configure-generated-file-in-source
Hello, On 04/09/07, Francesco Namuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to make the package of gtkol-ldap nice ldap administration > utility for gnome, the problem is that the orginal tarball contains > config.status and config.log, I think that the upstream has forgetted to > do a make distclean before creating the tar.gz (i think so because doing > make distclean deletes the files)... > > What is the best method to solve this problem? it's a good solution to > repackage the tar.gz? and in this case I have to add a suffix like > foo-0.1+dsfg.orig.tar.gz? I would first try to contact upstream and ask him to reupload the clean package. If by any reason upstream doesn't want to, or whatever, I would repackage the .orig.tar.gz, add a get-orig-src to the debian/rules and add a note on the readme.Debian. The dsfg prefix is used when you remove files from the upstream package because they can't be redistributed or some similar case which would either make the package go to non-free or not even possible to be distributed by Debian. Which is not your case. > > cheers, > francesco > > -- > Francesco Namuri > francesco(at)namuri(dot)it http://namuri.it/ > id gpg key: 21A4702A [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Say NO to Microsoft Office broken standard. See http://www.noooxml.org/petition -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: xpn
Am Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:47:02 +0200 schrieb Patrick Schoenfeld: > Michael Krauss wrote: [...] > > Here i get the following: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /usr/share/xpn/xpn.sh > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 559 2007-09-03 20:41 /usr/share/xpn/xpn.sh > > That is why you should use something like pbuilder etc. to test your > packaging, cause its bad to test things in an environment where other > conditions might be met. Just sidenoted. You are absolutely right. With pbuilder i got the same errors. I had read about pbuilder before, but regarded it as a tool to check dependencies. In the future i will use it always. [...] > So well: > I have checked your new version -4 and I'm afraid that it builds up a > bogus link to the binary. You must not use absolute pathes in the > links, as this will fail on systems other then the one were the > package is built (and ofcourse it will not work after removing the > src directory)- I would recommend you to use dh_link. After using pbuilder i experienced the same problem. With "dh_link" the link is set properly. Starting with revision 5 i use the deb file build by pbuilder for testing on my machine. After getting this package work, i must badly take a look behind the scenes of this dpkg stuff. There are so many alternative programs and approaches for packaging, one build upon the other. Kind regards, Michael Krauss signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xpn
Am Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:03:15 +0200 schrieb Daniel Leidert: [...] > Yes, it says "version", not "Debian revision". The options expects the > full version, including the upstream version and the Debian revision. > Say you have > > 1.2.3-0mk1 private > 1.2.3-1 released to mentors > 1.2.3-2 released to mentors > 1.2.3-3 released to Debian > > then use `-v1.2.3-0mk1'. Thanks for the explanation. Kind regards, Michael Krauss signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xpn
Am Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:44:17 +0200 schrieb Jan C. Nordholz: > ] dpkg-deb -c xpn_*deb > [...] > -rw-r--r-- root/root 559 2007-09-03 21:42 ./usr/share/xpn/xpn.sh > > No, it isn't. You are calling dh_fixperms in your debian/rules... I > guess you'll have to tell it not to modify the permissions of that > file. I use "--exclude xpn.sh" now. Thanks for the hint. Kind regards, Michael Krauss signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: cvsps (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.1-4 of my package "cvsps". It builds these binary packages: cvsps - Tool to generate CVS patch set information The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 382809 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cvsps - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cvsps/cvsps_2.1-4.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Michael Casadevall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: normalize-audio (updated package)
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:04:31PM +0200, Joachim Reichel wrote.. > > An updated package is at > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/normalize-audio/normalize-audio_0.7.7-2.dsc Nice work. Uploaded. Kevin -- Kevin Coyner GnuPG key: 1024D/8CE11941 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
lintian warning - configure-generated-file-in-source
Hi, I'm trying to make the package of gtkol-ldap nice ldap administration utility for gnome, the problem is that the orginal tarball contains config.status and config.log, I think that the upstream has forgetted to do a make distclean before creating the tar.gz (i think so because doing make distclean deletes the files)... What is the best method to solve this problem? it's a good solution to repackage the tar.gz? and in this case I have to add a suffix like foo-0.1+dsfg.orig.tar.gz? cheers, francesco -- Francesco Namuri francesco(at)namuri(dot)it http://namuri.it/ id gpg key: 21A4702A [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
Re: Advice on HTML docs
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:58:36 +0200 Francesco Namuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > " > This is an old metatag outdated from the time I first write the doc in > Amiga (there were first in amigaguide format and i used a tool to > convert it to html which added this meta...) > > I will remove this. Put that notice in debian/copyright. > find ./ -type f | xargs perl -pi -w -e 's/ content="GuideML 2.2">//g' > and to check > grep 'GuideML' *.html > " > > I know that I can't modify the orig tarball by myself, You could actually - as long as you document how and why it was done in debian/copyright. > but what do you > think if I add a note about this mail in README.Debian or in another > file? As Russ noted, I should have pointed you to debian/copyright instead of README.Debian. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpw5bLdMoxVf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: normalize-audio (updated package)
Hi Kevin, > You need to complete the debian/copyright a little more as it does > not even reference GPL v2, which it is. See the package tnef for an > example. A good habit is to run > > licensecheck -r . > > from the working directory on every package you work on. I fixed the copyright file. > A bit picky on my part, but remove the: > > ## All lines beginning with `## DP:' are a description of the patch. > > line in debian/patches/*.dpatch files. It just takes up space. You > might also consider slightly more verbose descriptions in each patch > just to make it easier on yourself (or the next maintainer) a few > years from now. Also, make sure to pass on the patches to upstream. I removed that comment and added proper descriptions. Upstream is aware of all patches. > Other than that, looking O.K. although I'm unable to build it right > now because pbuilder can't seem to pull down the packages: > > libvorbis0a > libvorbisenc2 > libvorbisfile3 > > from the ftp.us.debian.org archives. I'll try again in a little bit. IIRC there have been various problem reports with ftp.us.d.o from time to time. You might want to try a different mirror. An updated package is at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/normalize-audio/normalize-audio_0.7.7-2.dsc Thanks, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: nrss
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:56:47AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: Michael and me are working on the package, I offered to sponsor it on sponsors.debian.net and we will discuss it on IRC. Thanks and Regards, -- .''`. Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :Debian GNU/Linux developer `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
"Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "steam-powered". > > * Package name: steam-powered > Version : 5 > Upstream Author : Michael Gilbert > * URL : no website > * License : gpl > Section : contrib/games Does the package has an active and resposive upstream? How do you intend to care for bugreports? Where do you intend to forward bugs in the games installed by steam-powered to? Are you willing and able to do a security audit of the software? As far as I understand, it downloads more or less random executable binary data from a commercial vendor (valve), and executes the software. Doesn't this impose a security risk for the user? How can Debian support this package security wise? On what architectures does your package work? only on i386 or on amd64 as well? > It builds these binary packages: > counter-strike - Valve's counter-strike video game > counter-strike-source - Valve's counter-strike-source video game > day-of-defeat - Valve's day-of-defeat video game > day-of-defeat-source - Valve's day-of-defeat-source video game > half-life - Valve's half-life video game > half-life2 - Valve's half-life2 video game > steam-powered - Valve's steam game content delivery system What are the contents of that binary packages? AFAIU, it downloads the software from the net, so why provide binary packages here? TBH, I see a lot of problems for debian with supporting this package. Unless you can find a supportive DD helping you with the package, and can satisfactory answer questions like in this email, I don't see a place for it in Debian. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Patrick Schoenfeld schrieb: > Charles Plessy wrote: >> Fortunately, the wise people who wrote the Social Contract made it >> clear: >> >> We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these >> works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, >> although they have been configured for use with Debian. > > [...] Please ignore what I have written. I found out that this package just downloads non-free software in the style of e.g. msttcorefonts and therefore i understand that it is not suitable for main. Anyways I think that policy could need some polishing cause it is not clear enough in this point, cause it says by its exact wording that it requires Depends: etc. for contrib, which is not the only way to depend on things in case of such meta-packages. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Charles Plessy wrote: > Fortunately, the wise people who wrote the Social Contract made it > clear: > > We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these > works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, > although they have been configured for use with Debian. Unfortunately it does not seem that clear, because policy states, that packages for its inclusion in main "must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package)". So according to the policy (as I understand it) steam (which is - as of what I've got from in this discussion - GPL) would go to main, as it is *not* non-free nor does it require any non-free software to be installed. Even if it is *used* to install non-free software, it does not depend on it (via the usual depend mechanisms). So in sense of the policy, steam would be a main-candidate. But it seems that here arepeople, that either do not accept this or interpret it other then I do. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Le Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:06:19PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > David Given <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Given that I've just seen pretty much exactly the same conversation > > on -devel about a week ago, and that this keeps popping up, it's > > obvious that there *is* demand for working non-free software on > > Debian. (I use it myself.) > > It's obvious that people want it, even on a free operating system. It > still has no place *in* a free operating system, by definition. Fortunately, the wise people who wrote the Social Contract made it clear: We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: eprints
In response to Charles Plessy: No still haven't got a sponsor yet and I will keep the mentors site up to date with the progress of this package. Also many thanks for the hint, I will hit the debian-science list now. David Tarrant -- EPrints Debian Maintainer School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton UK -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
David Given <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given that I've just seen pretty much exactly the same conversation > on -devel about a week ago, and that this keeps popping up, it's > obvious that there *is* demand for working non-free software on > Debian. (I use it myself.) It's obvious that people want it, even on a free operating system. It still has no place *in* a free operating system, by definition. > Also given that given that there are a number of DDs who *do* want > to sponsor non-free (because otherwise there wouldn't be such a > thing...), might I suggest that it might be worthwhile setting up a > -nonfree mailing list? Such a mailing list is contrary to the goal of Debian, so I'd be alarmed to see such a list using Debian's resources. Feel free to set up such a list somewhere else though. -- \ "Contentment is a pearl of great price, and whosoever procures | `\it at the expense of ten thousand desires makes a wise and | _o__) happy purchase." -- J. Balguy | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ben Finney wrote: [...] > There's nothing in the social contract that compels anyone to include > any specific software in Debian if they are disinclined to do so. The > package in question has as its sole purpose the promotion of non-free > software. Many people are disinclined to spend effort on promoting > non-free software, and your cries will not gain their support. Hmm. Given that I've just seen pretty much exactly the same conversation on -devel about a week ago, and that this keeps popping up, it's obvious that there *is* demand for working non-free software on Debian. (I use it myself.) Also given that given that there are a number of DDs who *do* want to sponsor non-free (because otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing...), might I suggest that it might be worthwhile setting up a -nonfree mailing list? This ought to allow the relatively small number of nonfree developers to meet each other more easily, while also keeping such things out of -mentors and -devel, an improvement to everybody. - -- ┌── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─── http://www.cowlark.com ─── │ │ "There does not now, nor will there ever, exist a programming language in │ which it is the least bit hard to write bad programs." --- Flon's Axiom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG3R5wf9E0noFvlzgRAgFgAKDd+f2/0vN600Zatk49hEIA3Y/CDwCfYFqZ Oc4NDyB0uajOKYwUOtFkzXs= =bLPA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Advice on HTML docs
Hi, I've got the answer from the author of homebank: " This is an old metatag outdated from the time I first write the doc in Amiga (there were first in amigaguide format and i used a tool to convert it to html which added this meta...) I will remove this. In waiting you can do it also and re-submit to debian, here is what i've done: cd homebank/doc find ./ -type f | xargs perl -pi -w -e 's///g' and to check grep 'GuideML' *.html " I know that I can't modify the orig tarball by myself, but what do you think if I add a note about this mail in README.Debian or in another file? cheers, francesco Il giorno lun, 03/09/2007 alle 21.14 +0100, Neil Williams ha scritto: > homebank was the subject of an RFS some time ago and had problems with > non-GPL licenced SVG images (which, I admit, I completely missed). > > These were fixed and I uploaded a new upstream version provided by the > maintainer but it was rejected because there is no source for the HTML > documentation. > > " > rejected, the source of doc/*.html is missing. If you look into the > files you see a "Generator" Metatag pointing at GuideML. According > to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuideML) thats a > meta-language used to generate files out of it. > " > > The history is this: The HTML docs were (once upon a time) created > using an Amiga application before the port to Ubuntu/Debian. Upstream > now maintain the docs using text editors rather than automated tools - > upstream just haven't removed the generator meta tags. The maintainer > put a note to this effect in README.Debian prior to the rejection. > > The docs themselves are nicely done and there is no good reason to > recommend one of the standard automated documentation tools which > would tend to produce a less polished output overall. > > README.Debian in the rejected package contains: > > homebank for Debian > --- > > Homebank is a project born for the amiga, now the author has migrated it > to GTK+, the primary development target is linux, but the roadmap > previews a macOS port (quite done) and a window$ port. > > PATCHES TO HTML DOCUMENTATION > - > If you want to contribute enhancing the html feel free to send patches > to the upstream author or to the maintainers of homebank. Consider that > the documentation is made using a normal text editor, so a simple patch > is fine. > > -- Francesco Namuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:57:09 > +0200 > > Does Debian really need to ask upstream for a new release with the > meta tags tweaked when there is notice that a normal text editor is used > for the docs? > > The generator tag is historical - an artefact of the original migration > from Amiga. OK, README.Debian could be a bit more explicit I know, but > what else can / should be done to allow homebank into Debian without > requiring a new upstream release? > -- Francesco Namuri francesco(at)namuri(dot)it http://namuri.it/ id gpg key: 21A4702A [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Hey Michael, like i said before, the purpose of the package is to help the average user to easily run the software of their choice on linux. steam does include a store, but it is by no means the only purpose for the software. I want that choice too. I'm playing Half-life1 (CS) and Half-life2 under Windows. I never tried to install it with wine because wineapps are sometimes not easy to install. Thanks for you package - it works nice :) I hope it comes in Debian. Best Regards, Max -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Le Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit : > > But even then this doesn't get you any further - calling up other > more-or-less bad examples doesn't make yours any better, that's > kindergarden argumentation line. > Yes, but the social contract doesn't regulate where one puts their > effort into. And some chose not to do so for non-free software, which > is their right and yours to accept it. Dear all, dear Gerfried and Ben, It would be really great if we managed to keep this mailing list insult-free. Everybody has the right of not sponsoring free software made for helping to use non-free software, and now that it has been said it may be time to move on and let Michael look for one. Now that the ITP went on -devel, there is opportunity to raise fundamental objections on the presence of Steam-Powered in Debian, but if for each RFS on this list we get mails from persons explaining why they will not consider to sponsor the packages, our mailboxes will explode... Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
Michael, please preserve attribution lines so it's clear who wrote what you're quoting. "Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This sub-thread is discussing whether we *want* software in Debian > > whose only purpose is to sell non-free software. > > like i said before, the purpose of the package is to help the > average user to easily run the software of their choice on linux. The only software that the package helps users run is non-free. It's not in the interest of a free operating system to aid that purpose. Note that I've already said that it's neither valid to hinder that purpose, but by asking for the package to be included and maintained in the Debian infrastructure you're asking for active assistance in running non-free software. > if someone is willing to package and maintain it, then why not? They're welcome to expend their own resources to do so. While some non-free software is present on Debian's infrastructure, the Debian resources are primarily for the creation of a free operating system. > how can the system be universal if software is refused because it is > used to run non-dfsg software? Because that's it's *main* purpose. If free-software games were distributed on the Steam service, that would be a useful thing for a free operating system. As is, there's nothing about the service that is useful to include in a free operating system. > if that is the case, then one should reject wine, iceweasel, gcc, > and any other software that could be used to run non-dfsg software. The argument was never "could be used to run non-dfsg software". > as i understand it, to become a debian developer, one has to agree > to adhere to the social contract There's nothing in the social contract that compels anyone to include any specific software in Debian if they are disinclined to do so. The package in question has as its sole purpose the promotion of non-free software. Many people are disinclined to spend effort on promoting non-free software, and your cries will not gain their support. -- \ "Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep | `\ alone." -- Anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: steam-powered
* Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-03 21:38:09 CEST]: > if someone is willing to package and maintain it, then why not? i > thought the goal was for debian to be the universal operating system. > how can the system be universal if software is refused because it is > used to run non-dfsg software? if that is the case, then one should > reject wine, iceweasel, gcc, and any other software that could be used > to run non-dfsg software. Your example is absolutely flawed because iceweasel's and gcc's main purpose is *not* to run non-dfsg software. And IMHO you are right about wine, because for a start it's not universal, it's arch specific. But even then this doesn't get you any further - calling up other more-or-less bad examples doesn't make yours any better, that's kindergarden argumentation line. > as i understand it, to become a debian developer, one has to agree to > adhere to the social contract Yes, but the social contract doesn't regulate where one puts their effort into. And some chose not to do so for non-free software, which is their right and yours to accept it. So long, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: ipp2p
Hi, I wonder how this is going on. I'm one who used it to serve a customer. And I heard some people asking for it in debian for some time. (Mostly, I pointed them to Bug #408258 to fetch the source package and build it themselves.) So, it would be nice to have it in official debian. Not a DD, I can just hope that someone would give a hand. Thanks, -- Theppitak Karoonboonyanan http://linux.thai.net/~thep/ On 4/26/07, Rasmus Bøg Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ipp2p". > > * Package name: ipp2p > Version : 0.8.2-1 > Upstream Author : IPP2P > * URL : http://www.ipp2p.org/ > * License : GPL > Section : net > > It builds these binary packages: > ipp2p - An extension to netfilter that recognizes P2P (iptables > extension > ipp2p-source - An extension to netfilter that recognizes P2P traffic > (kernel sou > > The package is lintian and linda clean. > > The upload would fix these bugs: 408258 > > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ipp2p > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main > contrib non-free > - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/ipp2p/ipp2p_0.8.2-1.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. > > Kind regards > Rasmus Bøg Hansen > > -- > Rasmus Bøg Hansen || [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Harrestrupvang 13A, 2th || http://www.zz9.dk > 2500 Valby || > >
