headers
Raphael Geissert | 1 Dec 01:44
Picon

Re: [php-maint] Bug#341420: marked as done (code in exts/dbase is not DFSG-free)

Hi,

2008/11/30 Holger Levsen <holger <at> layer-acht.org>:
[...]
> On Sunday 30 November 2008 05:04, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Right, but it is a DFSG-freeness issue and those take time to
>> *properly* resolve.
>
> That depends, sometimes removal of those bits doesnt hurt. Also, removing
> those bits is usually better than removing the package.

The package would not be removed, the issue would have been fixed
either by getting permission from the copyright holder, or by
*properly* removing the affected code.

By coordinating the removal of the code the following things could
have been done:
1.- Decide the proper naming of the uploaded package version
2.- Ensuring that the watch file mangles the Debian version and that
it calls a script designed to strip the code from the downloaded
tarball, so that there is no need to manually remove it from future
tarballs[1].
3.- Including patches for a couple of issues that were pending to be uploaded.

[1] The dbase extension has been removed by upstream for the 5.3.x
series, but the future releases of the 5.2.x will still include it.

>
> Having an RC bug open without a reply for three weeks at this stage of the
> release is just not acceptable.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Raphael Geissert | 1 Dec 01:45
Picon

Re: [php-maint] Bug#341420: marked as done (code in exts/dbase is not DFSG-free)

[I would appreciate if you respected the CoC]

2008/11/30 Ben Hutchings <ben <at> decadent.org.uk>:
[...]
>
> php5 had an RC bug open with an obvious fix available for 3 weeks.  The

What looks obvious to you may not be obvious to the others, please
refrain from making such statements.

> fix was to remove code that was not even being built, so it was
> low-risk.  Why exactly should I have hesitated to NMU?

As already stated by Steve: because of devref 5.11.1, and because of
mere courtesy.

Also, the issue affects all versions of php from php3 to php5. So in
case you are interested in "fixing" the whole problem then deal with
the copies at archive.d.o, snapshot.d.n, and master.

>
> Ben.
>

Regards,
--

-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
José Miguel Parrella Romero | 1 Dec 03:01
Picon
Gravatar

Bug#495190: Not MIA D= (was Re: Bug#495190: no answer for 495190)

Vincent Danjean escribió:
>   Hi,
> 
>   Is Jose Parrella MIA ? I did not get any answer at all from him
> since 15 Aug 2008 (and a reminder on 29 Oct 2008).

Hello, Vincent!

I'm not MIA, as you might see from other Debian-related activity. I've 
already uploaded the latest A::CD. Let me know if you run into any 
problems. All of my packages are open for NMU if you think I'm lagging.

NB: I'm not in the list.

Jose
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gunnar Wolf | 1 Dec 03:59
Gravatar

Re: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main

Petter Reinholdtsen dijo [Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 04:05:09PM +0100]:
> (...)
>   acroread acroread-escript

FWIW, I find this quite strange... I know many non-FS users assume
that the good PDF reader is the Acrobat PDF reader. However, I find it
quite inferior both in usability and on quality to evince - Even now
that evince does properly(?) support provisions disallowing copying
from or printing a PDF.

But anyway, and knowing this is not an Ubuntu list... Does anybody
know why on Earth is Acroread popular? Why isn't a PDF regularly
handled in a saner way with Evince (or kde-based lookalike) in some
distributions?

--

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf <at> gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Permalink | Reply | 38 comments |
headers
Ben Hutchings | 1 Dec 04:19
Picon

Re: [php-maint] Bug#341420: marked as done (code in exts/dbase is not DFSG-free)

On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 18:45 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> [I would appreciate if you respected the CoC]
> 
> 2008/11/30 Ben Hutchings <ben <at> decadent.org.uk>:
> [...]
> >
> > php5 had an RC bug open with an obvious fix available for 3 weeks.  The
> 
> What looks obvious to you may not be obvious to the others, please
> refrain from making such statements.
> 
> > fix was to remove code that was not even being built, so it was
> > low-risk.  Why exactly should I have hesitated to NMU?
> 
> As already stated by Steve: because of devref 5.11.1, and because of
> mere courtesy.

You're right, I'm sorry.

7.2.2 actually contradicts 5.11.1, but I accept that I should have
either notified my intent to NMU or used the delayed queue.

> Also, the issue affects all versions of php from php3 to php5.

Then please assign clones of the bug to php3 and php4.

> So in
> case you are interested in "fixing" the whole problem then deal with
> the copies at archive.d.o, snapshot.d.n, and master.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mikhail Gusarov | 1 Dec 04:50
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

Twas brillig at 00:40:50 01.12.2008 UTC+01 when md <at> Linux.IT did gyre and gimble:

 Md> I need to remind everybody that sadly it is a dependency of Plesk
 Md> (the only high quality administration panel software) so it's still
 Md> going to be installed anyway on many Debian servers.

 Md> Maybe having an official well-maintained package (and the one you
 Md> evalued clearly is not) is the least evil.

[speaking as Plesk ex-developer] It won't help, Plesk's qmail is patched
in various ways, including Plesk-specific patches, so version provided
by Debian won't help.

--

--
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Moerner | 1 Dec 05:25
Picon

Re: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main

With regard to the thread proper: As far as packages that are not
currently in Debian, dkms has already obviously been discussed.
apturl seems interesting, however.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf <at> gwolf.org> wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen dijo [Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 04:05:09PM +0100]:
>> (...)
>>   acroread acroread-escript
>
> FWIW, I find this quite strange... I know many non-FS users assume
> that the good PDF reader is the Acrobat PDF reader. However, I find it
> quite inferior both in usability and on quality to evince - Even now
> that evince does properly(?) support provisions disallowing copying
> from or printing a PDF.
>
> But anyway, and knowing this is not an Ubuntu list... Does anybody
> know why on Earth is Acroread popular? Why isn't a PDF regularly
> handled in a saner way with Evince (or kde-based lookalike) in some
> distributions?

Evince cannot properly zoom in on some pdfs.  Compare pdfs at 200%
zoom downloaded from JSTOR (a commonly used and rather expensive
database collection) in evince and acroread.  Evince has notably
inferior quality in this regard.

Also, prior to kde4, kpdf did not support rotation, which explains why
acroread as an alternative would have been popular.

--

-- 
Daniel Moerner <dmoerner <at> gmail.com>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Paul Wise | 1 Dec 05:29
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Moerner <dmoerner <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> apturl seems interesting, however.

Debian already has aptlinex so apturl isn't needed. Might be a good
idea for the two upstreams of these packages to get them merged.

--

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Baumann | 1 Dec 06:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Does anybody
> know why on Earth is Acroread popular?

There are some features that are present in e.g. evince, but are,
arguable though, more 'advanced' implemented in adobe reader (e.g.
better zooming capabilities as alreayd someone said).

however, there are two 'features' that are atm completely specific to
adobe reader: CMYK support and support of displaying certain DRM locked
ebooks and such, that do dynamically 'reload' pages from sub-files (many
computer magazine archive cds do that).

I think most people that use adobe reader use it because they just
*think* it is the better reader, which it is in most cases not. or
because they don't know that with mozplugger, you can use evince to
behave like adobes pdf plugin.

Regards,
Daniel

--

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann <at> panthera-systems.net
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Petter Reinholdtsen | 1 Dec 06:07
Gravatar

Why is acroread so popular? (Was: Popular packages in Ubuntu that is missing in Debian/main)

[Gunnar Wolf]
> But anyway, and knowing this is not an Ubuntu list... Does anybody
> know why on Earth is Acroread popular? Why isn't a PDF regularly
> handled in a saner way with Evince (or kde-based lookalike) in some
> distributions?

It is also popular in Debian.  I asked the same question over at
debian-edu@, and got a lot of replies.  I recommend looking at
<URL:http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-edu <at> lists.debian.org/msg13528.html>
for that thread.

Happy hacking,
--

-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane