Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Stefano, as admin of the DEP Alioth project (I think that the others
retired), would you agree to create a dedicated mailing list for
DEP-5? I volunteer for the mailman administration, and for taking the
responsibility that no major changes are
Hi Stephen,
I like the idea and I think that having this role somewhat formalised will
help achieving it goals.
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
for DEP-5[0].
[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
The story so far, in a very rough summary:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 13:58 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Stefano, as admin of the DEP Alioth project (I think that the others retired),
would you agree to create a dedicated mailing list for DEP-5? I volunteer for
the mailman administration, and for taking the responsibility that no major
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few comments:
- Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more annoying
to use than writing a
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few comments:
- Personally I find the format
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
It was just suggested we move the DEP-5 discussions off debian-project.
I think that would be a mistake. This is something that affects the
project as a whole, and should therefore be easy for the whole project
to follow, now
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
A few
On 12.08.2010 16:28, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 03:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much
On 12/08/2010 14:59, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
- Instead of writing such files (and keeping them updated), we should put more
energy into doing this task automatically. There are various tools to analyze
licenses automatically, for example from OpenLogic (commercial unfortunately)
or
* Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi, 2010-08-13, 00:45:
The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
* a Comment field would be good
* license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
current thread on the
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
[...]
If there's more issues, please raise them.
It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
can be
On Thu, Aug 12 2010, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
- Migrating all packages to the new format is an insane task which
would take a *long* time and a lot of work.
There is no goal to migrate all
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
- Personally I find the format unnecessarily complicated and much more
annoying
to use than writing a normal debian/copyright file, especially for
complicated
cases.
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
The current outstanding issues I am aware of:
* a Comment field would be good
* license shortnames/keywords: the set of keywords probably needs work,
and hopefully can be compatible with what other projects use; the
current thread on the meaning of
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
True, but to gain some benefit you'd need a lot of DEP-5'ed packages to
have something useful to work on. Are there any statistics about the
number of packages which use DEP5 in d/copyright?
I don't have any hard statistics, but I think the number is
Dear project,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:59:15PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:45 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
It would be good to have DEP-5 done quite early in the squeeze+1
development cycle to give as much time as possible for adoption.
[...]
So my opinion in short words:
Craig Small csm...@debian.org writes:
I actually second Bernd's comments. It seems uneccessarily complex and
so very much harder to read. It's especially insane if you have multiple
authors and where the license stays the same but the copyright years
change.
I combine all the copyright
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:08 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
I tried to use it once on one program and just ditched it. It only made
it more difficult for me and for anyone who read it.
That would indicate there is a bug in the DEP-5 spec. It is, in my very
non-humble opinion, not acceptable for DEP-5
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Craig Small wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:12AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
More importantly, making debian/copyright be machine parseable
provides some immediate benefits, without having to wait for a
solution to the big, difficult problem.
What are these
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files
Le Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45:30AM +1200, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
The effort to get a machine-readable format for debian/copyright
has been going on for some years now. I think it is time to get it
done. To help with this, I am joining Steve Langasek as a driver
for DEP-5[0].
Dear Lars,
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
It is necessary to let people add comments in debian/copyright. Some
people have asked for free-form comments and I think that it is a valid
request.
Enclosing comments in a DEP-5 fields give extra work since for each line
a space needs to be added,
On to, 2010-08-12 at 10:32 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
It would also be nice to take a hard look at the SPDX format,[1] adopt
any good ideas from it, and try to make sure that the resultant DEP-5
can be translated into SPDX, and vice versa. [There's no reason for us
to do all of the hard work
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
As mentioned in the other thread, one goal for DEP-5 for me is to make the
format sufficiently rich to allow me to use it for the upstream LICENSE
file. Towards that end, I have three changes I'd like to have.
Thanks, that's an interesting
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of the
distribution as a whole. (In US law, this is called a
On pe, 2010-08-13 at 09:57 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
The “paragraph” format that is popular in Debian control files does not allow
the use of free comments. [- - -]
...
I propose to use a simpler format, that is trivial to parse:
Having debian/copyright use the same file format as
On to, 2010-08-12 at 22:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On to, 2010-08-12 at 17:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* An additional section with the same syntax as the Files section but with
no Files field that would be used for documenting the copyright of
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:24:27AM -0400, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I would rather not complicate the CD+DVD building process even more to
produce non-free images. There are so many images that need to be
created already.
I
29 matches
Mail list logo
