Hello,
On Sun 29 Dec 2019 at 10:09am -05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 29, 2019 9:56:00 AM EST Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 10:46am -05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > The same information could be included in the machine readable format as
>> >
Sean Whitton writes:
> The main reason I referred to dgit's copyright file in this discussion
> was because I think the "Contributions are accepted upstream ..."
> section is useful to include in d/copyright rather than somewhere else
> in the source package, as then all licensing and copyright
Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-12-29 15:52:57)
> On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 04:14pm +01, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable
> >> copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright
>
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 9:56:00 AM EST Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 10:46am -05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > The same information could be included in the machine readable format as
> > comments. It's not the format per se that helps, it's how the maintainer
> >
Hello,
On Sun 29 Dec 2019 at 09:15am +01, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I see similar things on nm.debian.org, which I ended up calling in my
> head something like "the law of inflation of bureaucracy".
>
> That is, I see that when people are asked to do some work, that later
> will be checked by someone
Hello,
On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 10:46am -05, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The same information could be included in the machine readable format as
> comments. It's not the format per se that helps, it's how the maintainer
> organizes the information.
>
> Also, personally, I find understanding what
Hello Thorsten,
On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 04:14pm +01, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable
>> copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright file.
>
> this discussion started
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 03:15:07PM +0600, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> Maybe instead of saying "you shouldn't have done that",
> rather explain which parts of questions asked in one specific process
> one found sufficient to approve the NM as a DAM and why,
> so there is some more orientation and
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 02:35:50PM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 08:21am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Oh, wow. I've been doing this wrong all along. I am not sure how I
> > developed the impression that it was necessary to distinguish different
> > copyright
Mo Zhou writes:
> Don't know what Red Hat family does, but at least Archlinux and Gentoo
> treat the license checking problem in a very permissive way. However,
> Debian is sometimes an important reference to these friend distros when
> they encountered some problems about license.
I do think
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 02:13:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If we're only doing this for secondary
> reasons like legal liability, it might be worth looking around and seeing
> if other organizations with similar legal risks take the same precautions,
> or asking for legal advice on whether
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Beware that I say we must _check_ every file - not that we must _list_
> every file in debian/copyright.
> All that Debian distributes must be legal to distribute.
> You may argue that you need not check e.g. if PNG files in your package
> contain embedded non-free
Quoting Clint Adams (2019-12-28 21:20:03)
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 05:32:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > metadata file - without checking licensing of each and every _file_
> > which we *must* do (machine-readable or not).
>
> Why do you believe this to be true?
Beware that I say we
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 05:32:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> metadata file - without checking licensing of each and every _file_
> which we *must* do (machine-readable or not).
Why do you believe this to be true?
Scott Kitterman writes:
> On December 28, 2019 2:30:54 PM UTC, Sean Whitton
>>For packages with simple copyright and licensing, there are useful
>>things you can do with a freeform copyright file which you can't do
>>with a machine-readable file. See for example the contribution
>>information in
Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-12-28 15:35:50)
> On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 08:21am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Oh, wow. I've been doing this wrong all along. I am not sure how I
> > developed the impression that it was necessary to distinguish
> > different copyright holders (even same
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote:
The same information could be included in the machine readable format as
comments. It's not the format per se that helps, it's how the maintainer
organizes the information.
Yes, sure, but Sean mentioned the copyright file of dgit as a good
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 10:14:21 AM EST Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable
> > copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright file.
>
> this discussion
Hi Sean,
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Sean Whitton wrote:
For packages with simple copyright and licensing, machine readable
copyright files can take longer to write than a freeform copyright file.
this discussion started with possible stuff to reduce the time for NEW
reviews.
If I look at dgit, why
On December 28, 2019 2:30:54 PM UTC, Sean Whitton
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:31am +01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> I ceertainly agree that our copyright files should be
>machine-readable
>> in _addition_ to being human-readable, not instead.
>>
>> I believe our current
Hello,
On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:31am +01, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I ceertainly agree that our copyright files should be machine-readable
> in _addition_ to being human-readable, not instead.
>
> I believe our current machine-readable format is expressive enough to
> also be decently
Hello,
On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 11:39am +01, Michael Banck wrote:
> Really? Why?
Yes. (source: I'm an ftptrainee)
> So far I assumed that simple binary package renames due to shared
> library bumps or other API transitions where fast-tracked without full
> review, perhaps slightly less so for
Hello,
On Sat 28 Dec 2019 at 08:21am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Oh, wow. I've been doing this wrong all along. I am not sure how I
> developed the impression that it was necessary to distinguish different
> copyright holders (even same copyright holders with different copyright
> years),
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 09:47:20AM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Thorsten,
>
> On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 04:30pm +01, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
> > Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
> > It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright information.
>
> The other
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 09:58:57AM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Not sure why I'm being mentioned here;
Just a guess. Nevermind.
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 09:49:22AM +, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 11:29am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > One interesting thing about this is that I have often wondered if it
> > would be beneficial to have checks on debian/copyright during the life
> >
Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-12-28 10:53:14)
> On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 07:05pm +00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > The notion that it's easier for a human to parse isn't universal. I
> > don't find it's the case. Hard to follow copyright files can be
> > written in any format.
>
> This has been my
Hello Thorsten,
On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 04:30pm +01, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
> It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright information.
The other side of this is that using that format tends to encourage
documenting a bunch of
Hello,
On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 11:29am -05, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> One interesting thing about this is that I have often wondered if it
> would be beneficial to have checks on debian/copyright during the life
> of a package. Checking only once when a package first enters the Debian
> archive
Hello,
On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 04:05am +00, Mo Zhou wrote:
> However, accelerating the recruitment process of ftp team looks quite
> difficult to all participants, including the ftp-masters and the trainees:
>
> ftp-master:
> * time and energy is limited. doesn't have enough resource to provide
>
Hello,
On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 07:05pm +00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The notion that it's easier for a human to parse isn't universal. I
> don't find it's the case. Hard to follow copyright files can be
> written in any format.
This has been my experience as well.
For some packages, the
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:21:08PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:29:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
> > > It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright information.
> > hear hear. (as in:
On December 26, 2019 6:21:08 PM UTC, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:29:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
>> > It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright
>information.
>>
>> hear hear. (as in:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:29:57PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
> > It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright information.
>
> hear hear. (as in: what's blocking us from doing this?)
I'm sure some people will orphan or RM
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 06:01:40PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2019-12-26 17:29:52)
> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > >So, what does the FTP team consider that we,
Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2019-12-26 17:29:52)
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > >So, what does the FTP team consider that we, as the wider
> > >community of Debian Developers, can do to help?
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Make the machine-readable copyright file mandatory.
> It is much easier to "parse" than just a bunch of copyright information.
hear hear. (as in: what's blocking us from doing this?)
--
cheers,
Holger
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >So, what does the FTP team consider that we, as the wider community
> >of Debian Developers, can do to help?
>
> What about being more careful when creating the
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
So, what does the FTP team consider that we, as the wider community
of Debian Developers, can do to help?
What about being more careful when creating the debian/copyright for a
package?
I know it is boring, but writing a REJECT-mail is
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 08:53:43AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> So, what can we, as the wider community of Debian Developers, do to
> help?
Replying to myself.
I recognize that this thread contains varying suggestions as to how to
improve the situation. My question should have perhaps
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:05:20AM +, Mo Zhou wrote:
> However, accelerating the recruitment process of ftp team looks quite
> difficult to all participants, including the ftp-masters and the trainees:
>
> ftp-master:
> * time and energy is limited. doesn't have enough resource to provide
>
Hi,
Some personal opinions as one of the current batch of FTP trainees.
* The ftp team might be in a (somewhat) negative loop from the
sustainable development aspect.
Let's first list a couple of facts:
(0) There are a small group of DDs working as ftp-master. Their time and
energy are
42 matches
Mail list logo
