On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:17 PM Julien Puydt wrote:
> I have packaged a few mods for the minetest game these last years.
> Recent minetest versions have a feature where you can download mods
> directly online.
Where/how are the downloadable mods maintained?
> (1) should I go on updating the exis
hi,
doesn't the subject already tell that we are not talking about software
and it's freeness, but rather...
something else, something... important?
(not that I'd know more, here & now.)
my point is: i do think this is out of scope for policy as it is. and
rightfully so.
--
cheers,
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1170 (new: 5)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 209 (new: 1)
Total number of packages reques
Hello,
On Thu 16 Jul 2020 at 05:19PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> You would need the buggy version of the software if you wanted to
> make modified versions of the binary data to test for closely related
> bugs, for example.
Hmm, perhaps this is not true. Perhaps for making closely related
broken
Hello,
On Thu 16 Jul 2020 at 07:42PM +02, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 08:42:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I would remove the test data because it does not seem DFSG-conformant.
>
> Care to explain? You can't claim DFSG violation without showing which
> part.
That was a b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: James Valleroy
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, jvalle...@mailbox.org
* Package name: php-oscarotero-gettext
Version : 4.8.2
Upstream Author : Oscar Otero
* URL : https://github.com/php-gettext/Gettext
* License
Hi,
for those who would like to join our next videomeeting it will happen at
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Debian+CoViD-19+Biohackathon+Video+Conference&iso=20200717T20&p1=37&ah=1
The meeting is on the Debian Social channel
https://jitsi.debian.socia
Hey Philipp,
Philipp Hahn wrote:
>
>if a *previous* version of a software generated a *buggy* binary
>database, that bug got fixed in a *newer* version and also some
>*recovery* mechanism was added to allow reading that broken format
>*once*, but there is no code the write the *broken* file again.
Philipp Hahn writes:
> * Declare that there in no preferred form for modification, as a
> "open-save"-cycle with the current code will not re-create the bit
> idencial file again.
This is my gut reaction. Modifying this piece of testing data is mostly
pointless. It's kind of like asking what t
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 08:42:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I would remove the test data because it does not seem DFSG-conformant.
Care to explain? You can't claim DFSG violation without showing which
part.
Also please explain how you would make sure the code is tested.
Bastian
--
Killing
On 7/16/20 5:44 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 16 Jul 2020 at 05:17PM +02, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>
>> I have packaged a few mods for the minetest game these last years.
>> Recent minetest versions have a feature where you can download mods
>> directly online.
>>
>> So the questions are
Hello,
On Thu 16 Jul 2020 at 05:17PM +02, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have packaged a few mods for the minetest game these last years.
> Recent minetest versions have a feature where you can download mods
> directly online.
>
> So the questions are :
>
> (1) should I go on updating the existi
Hello Philipp,
On Wed 15 Jul 2020 at 09:45AM +02, Philipp Hahn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if a *previous* version of a software generated a *buggy* binary
> database, that bug got fixed in a *newer* version and also some
> *recovery* mechanism was added to allow reading that broken format
> *once*, but the
Hi,
I have packaged a few mods for the minetest game these last years.
Recent minetest versions have a feature where you can download mods
directly online.
So the questions are :
(1) should I go on updating the existing packages? or ask for their
removal? orphan them? whatever?
(2) should I go
Hi,
Quoting Christian Kastner (2020-07-16 14:08:34)
> On 2020-07-16 12:53, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> >> Generally speaking, I think it's a mistake to apply the question of
> >> "preferred form for modification" to unit test payloads. Unit tests are
> >> purely about functionality. The original sourc
On 2020-07-16 12:53, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> Generally speaking, I think it's a mistake to apply the question of
>> "preferred form for modification" to unit test payloads. Unit tests are
>> purely about functionality. The original source to a payload is an
>> arbitrary choice (possibly even rando
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastien Delafond
* Package name: colorcet
Version : 2.0.2
Upstream Author : James A. Bednar
* URL : https://github.com/holoviz/colorcet
* License : CC-BY-4.0
Programming Lang: Python
Description : A set of usef
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:28, Christian Kastner wrote:
On 2020-07-15 09:45, Philipp Hahn wrote:
if a *previous* version of a software generated a *buggy* binary
database, that bug got fixed in a *newer* version and also some
*recovery* mechanism was added to allow reading that broken for
On 2020-07-15 09:45, Philipp Hahn wrote:
> if a *previous* version of a software generated a *buggy* binary
> database, that bug got fixed in a *newer* version and also some
> *recovery* mechanism was added to allow reading that broken format
> *once*, but there is no code the write the *broken* fi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Félix Sipma
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: goldplate
Version : 0.1.1
Upstream Author : Jasper Van der Jeugt
* URL : https://github.com/fugue/goldplate.git
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Arnaud Rebillout
* Package name: pup
Version : 0.4.0+git20190919.681d7bb-1
Upstream Author : Eric Chiang
* URL : https://github.com/ericchiang/pup
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: Go
Description : command-line
21 matches
Mail list logo
