Bug#690750: developers-reference: no link to English manual

[Hideki Yamane]

Package: developers-reference
Version: 3.4.9
Severity: minor
tags: l10n
Control: user debian-de...@debian.or.jp
Control: usertags -1 debianjp

Hi,

 Now it's index.html says "This page is also available in French, German
 and Japanese." and link to each language. However, this line is same in
 each language.

 So, non-English manuals doesn't have a link to original English manual.
 As a comment in index.dbx,
> 

 Yes, it should be fixed (as severity: minor).

-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121017170401.f8d38cb4b17a46d9751c5...@debian.or.jp

Processed (with 1 errors): Re: dev-ref as .epub or .mobi

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> tags 683643 pending
Bug #683643 [developers-reference] dev-ref as .epub or .mobi
Added tag(s) pending.
> merge 683643 652044
Bug #683643 [developers-reference] dev-ref as .epub or .mobi
Unable to merge bugs because:
package of #652044 is 'src:developers-reference' not 'developers-reference'
Failed to merge 683643: Did not alter merged bugs
Debbugs::Control::set_merged('transcript', 'GLOB(0x331bb18)', 
'requester', 'Hideki Yamane ', 'request_addr', 
'cont...@bugs.debian.org', 'request_msgid', 
'<20121017174024.042d628e64bcd40d244e1...@debian.or.jp>', 'request_subject', 
...) called at /usr/local/lib/site_perl/Debbugs/Control/Service.pm line 537
eval {...} called at 
/usr/local/lib/site_perl/Debbugs/Control/Service.pm line 536
Debbugs::Control::Service::control_line('line', 'merge 683643 652044', 
'clonebugs', 'HASH(0x32763f8)', 'limit', 'HASH(0x32758d8)', 
'common_control_options', 'ARRAY(0x3275920)', 'errors', ...) called at 
/usr/lib/debbugs/service line 474

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
652044: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652044
683643: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683643
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.135046322920191.transcr...@bugs.debian.org

Bug#690495: Prohibit click-through licenses or disclaimers

[Sune Vuorela]

On Sunday 14 October 2012 23:50:21 Josh Triplett wrote:
> =
> Software in Debian should not prompt users to explicitly agree to
> licenses, disclaimers, or terms of service in order to run that
> software.  This includes prompts to agree to Free Sofware licenses
> (since such licenses do not require user agreement), warranty or
> liability disclaimers, notices about possible legal issues, or
> exhortations to use the software in any particular way.  Software
> designed to interact with a third-party service may pass through the
> terms of service for that third-party service if required by that
> service.
> =

What's next? prohibiting 'tip of the day' kind of dialogs? First run wizards? 
Or warnings that this is a dangerous/experimental/developer/debugging tool 
that might eat your dog if you aren't careful?

Note also that there for each case of such a thing is two people to actually 
acknowledge its existance. 1) the upstream author. and 2) the debian 
maintainer.  If both of them for whatever reason thinks that the right thing 
is to have a click-thru disclaimer, then I think we by default should accept 
it, and if in some cases we think it is very wrong use our defined processes 
in debian to deal with such things on a case by case basis.

/Sune
-- 
Do you know how can I do for booting the floppy disk of the 3X printer from 
the control options menu inside Redhat Linux NT?

You either should ping a wordprocessor, or have to cancel a EIDE mouse, this 
way from the control file within Outlook you neither can ever open the 
desktop, nor must enable the printer over the serial DLL file to a USB site of 
a icon of a SCSI GUI in order to turn off the sound board.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201210171228.19448.s...@debian.org

Bug#690495: Prohibit click-through licenses or disclaimers

[Josh Triplett]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:08:18AM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2012 23:50:21 Josh Triplett wrote:
> > =
> > Software in Debian should not prompt users to explicitly agree to
> > licenses, disclaimers, or terms of service in order to run that
> > software.  This includes prompts to agree to Free Sofware licenses
> > (since such licenses do not require user agreement), warranty or
> > liability disclaimers, notices about possible legal issues, or
> > exhortations to use the software in any particular way.  Software
> > designed to interact with a third-party service may pass through the
> > terms of service for that third-party service if required by that
> > service.
> > =
> 
> What's next? prohibiting 'tip of the day' kind of dialogs? First run wizards? 
> Or warnings that this is a dangerous/experimental/developer/debugging tool 
> that might eat your dog if you aren't careful?

I don't intend this as a slippery slope; I very specifically want to
cover the types of annoyances mentioned in the above paragraph, which
almost no software in Debian actually includes.  See the transmission
bug I linked to in the original bug submission.

If you installed something from Debian main, I think you'd find it
rather upsetting to run that software and get a prompt saying "By
running this software, you agree that ..." with an "I Agree" button.
This suggested policy change tries to cover cases like that; nothing
more.

- Josh Triplett


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121017224154.GA4598@jtriplet-mobl1

Re: [IANA #616232] Registration of text/vnd.debian.copyright: a media type for machine-readable copyright files.

[Charles Plessy]

Dear all,

The IESG-designated expert has reviewed our application and returned the inline
comments below.

I added my own comments below theirs.

> > Optional parameters:
> > revision - the revision number of the specification.
> 
> The syntax of the revision number needs to be specified: digits,
> digits.digits, digits.digits-digits, whatever.
 
Given that the current revision number is 1.0, and that I do not
think that we aim at updating the format frequently, I propose
the following:

  Optional parameters:
  revision - the revision number of the specification (digits.digits).

> > Security considerations:
> > The machine-readable debian/copyright file format is declarative
> > and does not cause commands to be executed. However, some programs
> > that parse it may execute commands containing values of some fields.
> > Therefore an attacker may exploit some security flaws in such programs.
> > Parsers should therefore follow general practices to sanitise their
> > input.
> 
> You should also specify if there are any privacy/integrity
> considerations here. I rather doubt that privacy is an issue for this
> type, but there may be cases where integrity protection is desirable.

I propose to add the following paragraphs.

  The comment or license fields may be used to quote discussions where
  redistribution terms have been clarified.  There is no formal mechanism to
  signal that a proper permission has been given to quote the discussion if
  it was private.

  The machine-readable debian/copyright file format does not feature mechanisms
  to ensure the integrity of the file.  Consider using secure transport when
  needed.

I am not sure how the first paragraph is needed.  What do you think ?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121018003605.gb29...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: [IANA #616232] Registration of text/vnd.debian.copyright: a media type for machine-readable copyright files.

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Plessy  writes:

>> The syntax of the revision number needs to be specified: digits,
>> digits.digits, digits.digits-digits, whatever.
>  
> Given that the current revision number is 1.0, and that I do not
> think that we aim at updating the format frequently, I propose
> the following:

>   Optional parameters:
>   revision - the revision number of the specification (digits.digits).

Yup, that looks right.

>> You should also specify if there are any privacy/integrity
>> considerations here. I rather doubt that privacy is an issue for this
>> type, but there may be cases where integrity protection is desirable.

> I propose to add the following paragraphs.

>   The comment or license fields may be used to quote discussions where
>   redistribution terms have been clarified.  There is no formal
>   mechanism to signal that a proper permission has been given to quote
>   the discussion if it was private.

>   The machine-readable debian/copyright file format does not feature
>   mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the file.  Consider using secure
>   transport when needed.

> I am not sure how the first paragraph is needed.  What do you think ?

I think that's an obscure enough case that it's not horribly important.  I
would just say something like:

This media type has no special privacy considerations.

For the last, I would add "or a digital signature" after "secure
transport," since if Debian ever needed to guarantee integrity of the
file, that's probably the mechanism that we'd use.

Thank you for doing this work!

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87hapspjdz@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#690495: Prohibit click-through licenses or disclaimers

[Russ Allbery]

Josh Triplett  writes:

> I don't intend this as a slippery slope; I very specifically want to
> cover the types of annoyances mentioned in the above paragraph, which
> almost no software in Debian actually includes.  See the transmission
> bug I linked to in the original bug submission.

> If you installed something from Debian main, I think you'd find it
> rather upsetting to run that software and get a prompt saying "By
> running this software, you agree that ..." with an "I Agree" button.
> This suggested policy change tries to cover cases like that; nothing
> more.

I agree that it's annoying, and I would also consider it a bug.  I'm not
sure that it belongs in Policy, though.  Not all bugs are Policy
violations, and there are an infinite number of ways to make mistakes in
packaging.  We have to decide which of them are important enough, and
relevant enough to the overall consistency of experience, to call out
specifically in Policy.

To me, this feels like a specific instance of the general problem of
excessive maintainer script prompting.  I'm not sure there's anything
specifically objectionable about notifying the user of the license terms
(which presumably are DFSG-free given that the software is in main)
compared to notifying the user of all sorts of other useless information
during package installation that they don't need to know, such as pointers
to upstream home pages, unnecessary examples, a picture of the author's
cat, or what have you.

Policy already says, among other things:

If a package has a vitally important piece of information to pass to
the user (such as "don't run me as I am, you must edit the following
configuration files first or you risk your system emitting
badly-formatted messages"), it should display this in the config or
postinst script and prompt the user to hit return to acknowledge the
message.  Copyright messages do not count as vitally important (they
belong in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright); neither do instructions
on how to use a program (these should be in on-line documentation,
where all the users can see them).

which is fairly close to what you're asking for, although isn't worded as
well as it could be ("copyright messages," for example, instead of
"license statements," which is what is actually being displayed).  I'd
prefer to work on that language if necessary rather than adding a new
statement, possibly by strengthening the degree to which Policy says to
not prompt unnecessarily.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d30gpiz2@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#690495: Prohibit click-through licenses or disclaimers

[Russ Allbery]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> To me, this feels like a specific instance of the general problem of
> excessive maintainer script prompting.

Oh, I see why you didn't class it that way: this isn't something done by
the maintainer scripts, but rather something done by the package itself.
Sorry, I had somehow missed that.

Yes, indeed, the chapter on maintainer scripts doesn't really help with
that.  Some similar issues apply, but not all of them (for example, the
problems caused for non-interactive installations aren't an issue, and
that's much of the concern with maintainer script prompting).  So we can't
really lean on existing bits of Policy; this would strike out into new
areas.

I think the root question is indeed whether this is the sort of bug (I
would also consider it a bug, although I'm not sure on severity or whether
the package maintainer needs to put a high priority on fixing it) should
be specifically called out in Policy.  As Sune mentions, there are a bunch
of closely-related cases (splash screens, first-time wizards, etc.), and
it's kind of hard to see how to draw a clear distinction, at least to me.

I do think this is iffy from a DFSG #7 perspective, since it's forcing the
user to agree to the additional license, but I'm not sure we've ever
discussed that in general.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87391cpih8@windlord.stanford.edu