/jekyll-asciidoc
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : Jekyll plugin to convert AsciiDoc source files to HTML pages
This plugin converts eligible AsciiDoc files located inside the source
directory to HTML pages in the generated site. It consists of three plugins:
.
(1
information for
multiple source files.
to build Groovy source files
GMavenPlus Plugin is a rewrite of GMaven, a Maven plugin that allows
one to integrate Groovy into Maven projects.
This package will be maintained by the Java team.
: Expat
Programming Lang: JavaScript
Description : pack node-style source files from a json stream
into a browser bundle
This module return a through stream that takes a stream of json input
and produces a stream of javascript output.
.
Node.js is an event-based server-side
: Expat
Programming Lang: JavaScript
Description : Only pass through newer source files
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : simple license checker for source files
Licensecheck attempts to determine the license that applies to each
file passed to it, by searching the start of the file for text
belonging to various licenses.
This is the licensecheck script from devsripts
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:44:44AM +0200, Víctor Cuadrado Juan wrote:
> * Package name: universal-ctags
> * URL : https://ctags.io/
> A continuation of the exuberant-ctags implementation of the ctags
Hey, can you elaborate a bit on how universal-ctags compare to
exuberant-ctags? T
//ctags.io/
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: C
Description : Generates an index (or tag) file of names found in source
files
A continuation of the exuberant-ctags implementation of the ctags
program. Ctags generates an index (or tag) file of language objects
found in source
which checks Python source files for errors
Frosted is a fork of pyflakes (originally created by Phil Frost) that
aims at more open contribution from the outside public, a smaller more
maintainable code base, and a better Python checker for all. It
currently cleanly supports Python 2.6 - 3.4
: C++
Description : Analyze #includes in C and C++ source files
"Include what you use" means this: for every symbol (type, function variable,
or macro) that you use in foo.cc, either foo.cc or foo.h should #include a .h
file that exports the declaration of that symbol. The includ
* License : Apache 2
Programming Lang: Java
Description : This Plugin creates a jar archive of the source files of a
project
The Maven 2 Source Plugin creates a JAR archive of the source files of the
current project.
A Git packaging repository has already been initialized:
http
+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : editor for Dpkg source files with validation
The command 'cme edit dpkg' provide a graphical editor for most files
of a package source.
The command 'cme chek dpkg' provide a command line that will check the
package file, a bit li
Description : generate OCaml modules from source files
Pack a set of OCaml source files into a single file preserving module
names. It also allows to exclude certain parts of the file.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
LaTeX colored syntax from OCaml source files
Caml2html provides a command-line executable which converts a set of
OCaml source files into a HTML or LaTeX document with colored syntax. A
library is also provided for building web-page generators that would
color OCaml code appropriately.
--
To
Russ Allbery writes:
> In other words, not building from source every time is not, in itself,
> a Policy violation. What's a Policy violation is shipping binaries
> that we *can't* build from source.
Yes, that better expresses my own understanding. Thanks for clarifying.
> (Please note: it may
Ben Finney writes:
> Charlie Smotherman writes:
>> "ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source."
>>
>> I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is
>> required? I have search but was unable to find anything.
> I would interpret it as follows:
> Policy §
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 10:48 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Charlie Smotherman writes:
>
> > "ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source."
> >
> > I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is
> > required? I have search but was unable to find anything.
>
> I w
Charlie Smotherman writes:
> "ampache ships a swf file but does not build it from source."
>
> I am curious to know which part of Debian Policy states that this is
> required? I have search but was unable to find anything.
I would interpret it as follows:
Policy §2.2.1 states “Every package in
(We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.)
Dominik Smatana writes:
> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
> beginning:
>
> // Please see included LICENSE.TXT
&g
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:51:25AM +0100, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.
>
> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
>
Hello,
thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.
One more "license-newbie" question:
In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
beginning:
// Please see included LICENSE.TXT
licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of course...
Is such r
On 11693 March 1977, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
> from "main" file)?
Talk to upstream. Unless you have written the files it is *NOT* yours to
declare them being licensed in whatever way.
--
bye, Joerg
hmm, I should fill in the b
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:20 +0100, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there are missing licenses in some source files in upstream project
> I'm packaging for Debian.
>
> There is just license in the "main" source file.
>
> Is it fine?
>
> Or shoul
Hello,
there are missing licenses in some source files in upstream project
I'm packaging for Debian.
There is just license in the "main" source file.
Is it fine?
Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
from "main" file)?
Thanks for advi
su, 2008-09-07 kello 19:29 +0100, Ian Jackson kirjoitti:
> I would say that _at the time when these projects were first shipped_
> in this state, it _was_ a clear violation (both of our principles and
> of the GPL) to do so.
As far as I understand, when most of those projects first shipped, the C
correct:
Manterola writes ("Re: 25+2 packages with (Glade) generated C source files
without the source"):
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ stuff ]
>
> No. .c files are still source code.
This is not correct. `Source c
2008-08-31 (일), 14:56 +0100, Neil Williams:
> On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 15:27 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 14:13 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > > Sorry, that is just tosh. If you want to load the glade file via Glade,
> > > you keep the XML, depend on libglade and c
Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 14:13 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Sorry, that is just tosh. If you want to load the glade file via Glade,
> you keep the XML, depend on libglade and call libglade at runtime.
You don’t need libglade anymore, GTK+ has integrated the functionality
since 2.12.
--
.'
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 02:13:21PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Of course it does! Once the functionality is dropped, there is no way to
> continue working on the project without editing the C files. Developers
> cannot continue using the old version of glade (it doesn't support some
> of the stuf
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 15:27 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 14:13 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Sorry, that is just tosh. If you want to load the glade file via Glade,
> > you keep the XML, depend on libglade and call libglade at runtime.
>
> You don’t need libglad
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 15:08 +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I’m pretty sure many of the list are in similar cases. Now loading the
> > UI directly into the application is the standard, but not so long ago
> > people generated templat
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:34AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I’m pretty sure many of the list are in similar cases. Now loading the
> UI directly into the application is the standard, but not so long ago
> people generated template code with glade and then edited it by hand.
> The .glade fil
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 23:19 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only questionable case I found
> > by this sampling is dia, where the file is "generated by Glade and
> > then hand-coded to make GNOME optional and add t
Le dimanche 31 août 2008 à 04:17 +0300, Sami Liedes a écrit :
> I went through some of these and checked them by hand, and generally
> couldn't find the glade project anywhere in the source tarball (it
> might be in the diff, I didn't check for that - would that BTW be OK,
> to have source code in
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I grepped the source tarballs in Lenny (testing) main section for the
> note "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - it is generated by Glade." which
> indicates the file is generated using the Glade UI editor. Then I
> checked if these p
7;t filed bugs for any of these, save for tangogps which was the
first case I encountered and after which I got the idea to do this.
In addition to the cases I found in main, the packages easyspice and
gtktrain in contrib seem suspect too (but I didn't take such a close
look).
* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070706 17:46]:
> > I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> > is licensed under..." be acceptable?
>
> In practice, there's so much software out there that just provides a
> license in the README file and no separate notices in ea
Paul Cager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But Ben Finney said:
>> No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
>> terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.
> I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> is licensed und
On Tue, July 3, 2007 4:06 pm, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
>> files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
>> helps transpare
"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the
> > source files don't actually need license statement, even though of
> > course it
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:06:11PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> > files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> > help
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:06:11 +0100 (BST)
"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> > files don't actually need license stat
On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> helps transparence and is therefore encouraged).
I didn't realise that. I had
* Paul Cager ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070702 23:04]:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
>
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rat
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:23:38PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
>
> I still want to package upstream's latest
I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
repository.
I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
of svn, so is it OK just to explain the situation i
[There is a X-debbugs-cc header which allows easier handling of bug mail
gated to the lists]
On Monday 18 December 2006 10:16, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> And/Or help developing or rewritting the incomplete designated
> successor, apt-cacher-ng (currently C++ with some sugar).
Not to dissuade anyone f
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I request assistance with maintaining the apt-cacher package. It needs a
Perl coder with sufficient knowledge about network programming and HTTP
protocol AND lots of spare time to test the fixes.
And/Or help developing or rewritting the incomplete designated
success
ftware License v1.1
Programming Lang: C and Perl
Description : semantic parser of source files
Sparse, the semantic parser, provides a compiler frontend capable of
parsing most of ANSI C as well as many GCC extensions, and a collection
of sample compiler backends, including a static analyze
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006, George Danchev wrote:
> > (I mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED], but didn't receive any reply.)
> both from d-o-m ;-)
I should have requested to be Cc:ed, but forgot to do so, thanks!
--
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thursday 10 August 2006 17:30, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Inclusion of the OCaml syntax highlighting file in GtkTextView is
> blocked until FreeDesktop includes the MIME type in its
> shared-mime-info database, but I don't know the MIME type of OCaml
> s
Hi,
Inclusion of the OCaml syntax highlighting file in GtkTextView is
blocked until FreeDesktop includes the MIME type in its
shared-mime-info database, but I don't know the MIME type of OCaml
source files.
Would someone happen to know what the MIME type of OCaml files i
source files
The ocamldsort command scans a set of Objective Caml source files
(.ml and .mli files) and sort them according to their dependencies
in order to link their corresponding .cmo files.
On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nils, in that case, could you add a `Source: web2c' field to their
> control files ?
Done. Will make it's way to debian next upload (I always takes three hours
to rebuild everything, and that needs to be done because of the context
diffs).
The need to rec
54 matches
Mail list logo
