[00:00] nhandler_, Thanks, I following/learning from the instructions on the ubuntu wiki which only seems to deal with the most basic of packing tasks [00:00] *I'm [00:03] csilk: are you following through the PackagingGuide at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete ? [00:03] I just went through it the other day (several times) and found it really helpful [00:04] radix, yes I am, Only just realised I've been looking at the "packaging from scratch" section for so long that I overlooked the fact that all the more advanced details are further down the page [00:04] yeah, it's long :) [00:05] It's like snow blindness, you look at it for so long you can't see it anymore [00:05] ;) [00:05] * csilk takes coffee break [00:06] so, does anyone have advice about why this cdbs-using package just gives me "make: Nothing to be done for `binary'." when I try to build it? It's got autotools.mk and gnome.mk included and this is a standard autotools/gnome project [00:07] radix: stab in the dark, but you may need debhelper.mk as well [00:07] james_w: oh, I've got it, sorry for not mentioning it [00:07] there's debhelper.mk, autotools.mk, utils.mk, and gnome.mk, in that order [00:07] nothing else in rules [00:07] hmm, are you actually building any binary packages? [00:08] i.e. is debian/control sane? [00:08] * radix looks [00:08] Is there any guide available to see what section a package woudl fit into? [00:08] *woudl [00:08] *WOULD [00:08] looks sane [00:08] oh craaap [00:08] james_w: thanks for pointing me in that direction [00:08] it's *not* sane [00:09] it's got "Architecture: i386" ;-) [00:11] csilk: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections has a list of all of the sectoins. That might help you choose. [00:11] radix, is there something like a cheat sheet to give me an idea as to waht types of packages go into what section of the repositories? [00:11] * radix points csilk at nhandler_ [00:11] yeah i hit return just as that was posted [00:13] Hmm, I still don't really know which of the sections would be the most apppriate for this package [00:13] I'm tempted to go for misc [00:13] csilk: Are there any other packages in the repositories that are similar to the one you are working on? [00:14] no [00:14] there isnt any other software for linux similar to this [00:14] csilk: if you describe it then others can give their opinions [00:15] csilk: I'm not an expert at this, but I would suggest looking at the types of packages with a section of 'misc' and 'utils'. Those sound like they might be the most appropriate. [00:15] The autor claims it to be: MegaTunix is the only tuning software for Unix. It's an engine tuning utility for measuring variables within a combustion engine such as fuel to air ratio etc etc [00:19] I was just reading up about the Documentation String Freeze (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationStringFreeze), what is defined as Documentation? [00:19] nhandler_, it's between electronics and misc [00:21] csilk: It is really your call. You know the application better than us. If a MOTU feels that it should have a different section, they will mention that in their comment on REVU. [00:26] thanks nhandler_ , radix . I'll put it down as misc, people in #debain seem to aggree, and like you said revu can always change it if need be [00:27] You're welcome csilk. Good luck with the packaging. I look forward to seeing it on REVU and in the repositories. [00:28] Thanks, it's my first package. Now that I've got into the flow of managing university work I'm really looking forward to spending more time learning the internals of ubuntu [00:30] Hi! I now it's not an official support channel, but you're the best people to answer my little question. :) I have 7.04 and want to upgrade to 8.04. I know it's not a supported way of upgrading, but is it safe to replace "feisty" -> "hardy" in sources.list and make a dist-upgrade? [00:32] E17: I would suggest upgrading to 7.10 (Gutsy) and then upgrading to 8.04 (Hardy). Modifying the sources.list is not a safe method of upgrading. [00:34] I wanted to get assured. Thanks. :) Will it be necessary in the future to do the same? Many people don't upgrade to every Ubuntu version. [00:36] E17: That is the safest method. You can also simply do a fresh install. [00:40] I don't want to do so. Thus, I will be having Gutsy. :] [00:43] "Many people don't upgrade to every Ubuntu version" - that's fine, but the only upgrade path from 7.04 to later versions is to upgrade 7.10 -> 8.04; if you don't want to have to upgrade every 6 months when the version you're running is end-of-lifed, you might want to do both of those upgrades now... [00:47] slangasek: if you don't want to upload every 6 month, upload every 2 years - LTS -> LTS [00:48] ok, but is it possible to skip versions since 7.10? It's interesting. [00:50] You can only skip releases if you're going LTS->LTS [00:50] ie. 6.06 LTS -> 8.04 -> 10.04 [00:50] right. If you're on 7.04 now, the upgrade path to an LTS is 7.04 -> 7.10 -> 8.04 [00:50] but you can do back-to-back upgrades... [00:51] Do you mean downgrades? [00:53] E17: No, he means upgrade from 7.04 to 7.10 and 7.10 to 8.04 in quick succession. [00:56] But it's still ~600M for 1. upgrade and ~600M for the second. [00:56] It's good I have 2Mbps. About an hour of downloading one "part". [00:56] Right. [00:57] E17: You need to remember, it is a year's worth of changes you are installing. That is why it takes so long. [01:04] Yes, I understand this. However, if it was possible to have in older Ubuntu versions the newest (but less important only) packages (in official repos, -backports maybe), upgrade would be smaller. [01:04] For example, there's newest wine in Hardy, but older in still supported Gutsy. It's OK for important packages, but not so friendly to the other ones. [01:05] I don't moan, just type what I think. I really like Linux, Ubuntu and the Free/Open Source world. [01:11] * E17 says good night / good bye, depending of your country [01:13] if I've got an AUTHORS file like this > http://pastebin.com/m2171c9ab should i just credit the lead/main developer or should i list everone in that AUTHORS file even though some of them didn't do any developement, they did things like donate hardware etrc? [01:13] *everyone [03:39] If I am requesting an upgrade of a package to a new upstream release (not in Debian), I know I need the .diff.gz. Do I also need a debdiff? [03:40] nhandler_: use revu [03:40] nhandler_: revu.ubuntuwire.com [03:41] nhandler_: and attach the link to the bug report [03:41] nhandler_: the whole package is prefered [03:41] nxvl: I've heard mixed things about using REVU for new upstream releases. The package is already in the repositories. Should I use REVU, or should I just upload the files to a Launchpad bug report? [03:42] nhandler_: Attaching the .diff.gz to a bug is the official way. If a potential sponsor wants it on review, you might as well put it there so you get sponsored. [03:42] exit [03:43] Ok, thanks ScottK-laptop. Do I need to provide a debdiff along with the .diff.gz? [03:43] nhandler_: it's a matter of preferences, i just check it if it's in revu :D [03:43] No. It's pretty sensless for a new upstream. [03:45] Anyone got a clue why pbuilder keeps throwing me an error > make: *** [config.status] Error 1 [03:45] says it cant find "flex" [03:46] Ok, thanks ScottK-laptop and nxvl. I already have the files attached to a LP bug report. If a sponsor requests that I move it to REVU, I will. The advantage to keeping it on LP is that I only need one MOTU to look it over and upload it, vs the 2 needed for REVU [03:47] nhandler_: One versus two is new upstream versus new package. Doesn't matter if it's on revu or not. [03:48] csilk: then add flex to the build depends [03:48] or flex-dev or something like that [03:48] i did [03:48] then you added the wrong package [03:49] it's looking for flex as library [03:49] not as package (i think) [03:49] what package is it again? [03:49] flex [03:49] \o/ my first patch to the -installer [03:49] \o/ [03:49] csilk: package flex? [03:49] yup [03:49] csilk: can you send me the lp link to the package please [03:49] (and version) [03:52] ScottK-laptop: did you know if there is a policy for bzr branches sponsorship? === LucidFox_ is now known as LucidFox [03:52] ScottK-laptop: just propose the merge with the oficial one and subscribe the team to that? [03:53] nxvl: There is not. [03:53] AFAIK MOTU sponsorship process is built around debian packages. [03:54] ScottK-laptop and nxvl: I just re-read the REVU wiki page "If you packaged a new upstream version (of a package that is already in the archives), and you want to get it sponsored, do not use REVU to get it sponsored. Instead see SponsorshipProcess." [03:55] ScottK-laptop: it's a main sponsorship [03:55] Ah. [03:55] I was confused by what channel we're in. [03:55] Dunno what the rules might be for that then. [03:57] ok [03:57] :D [03:57] i will need to ping colin on monday [03:58] need to go [03:58] god damn [03:59] dont you just hate it when life gets in the way of productivity [04:30] success, one passed out girlfriend recovered from one friends bathroom [04:38] nxvl, i fixed the flex problem, i was just overlooking several dependencies [04:39] added them to the control file now and all is well [05:24] argh, I missed the MOTU meeting [05:24] I seem to be alseep whenever we have them [05:27] me too [05:40] * NCommander listens to the theme of House MD [05:43] ... [05:43] NCommander, are you peaking at my last.fm? [05:44] No, youtube [05:46] * NCommander thinks House is awesome [05:49] I know revu don't usually accept packages that have no man pages, but what if the app has no written documentation in the first place? [05:52] csilk: All the more reason you should write a man page for it. [05:53] ScottK, thing is, i cant test this software as it requires specialist hardware [05:53] so there is no way i can write the documentation [05:53] Use the source luke. [05:54] haha if only it were that simple === fabrice_sp_ is now known as fabrice_sp === fabrice_sp_ is now known as fabrice_sp [07:30] NCommander: there was a MOTU meeting that actually took place? [07:31] geser, that seems to be the popular opinion [08:48] <\sh> moins [09:22] siretart: fyi: almost done merging fai 3.2.11. Will try to find time to test (later) [09:22] * allee afk [09:52] Good morning. [10:04] allee: excellent, thanks [10:09] morning iulian [10:16] Hey jpds [10:45] morning [10:45] morning RainCT [10:46] Hi RainCT. [11:14] Does anyone know of an example of tarball-in-tarball packaging off the top of their head? [11:14] I can't find any documentation about how to do it [11:15] volkris, tarball-in-tarball packaging? [11:15] volkris: vim. [11:16] directhex, I have a package where the makefiles are distributed separately from the code, so one has to unpack the makefiles and put the code in the src subdirectory of that tree [11:16] oh. erk. [11:16] So I asked about it here yesterday and was advised to go tarball-in-tarball [11:17] "erk" basically sums up my thoughts every time I'm asked to build this monstrosity :) [11:29] volkris: I can think of coreutils, glibc and gcc off the top of my head, but I doubt those are "simple" examples [11:31] Well I see vim has tarballs in its source distribution [11:32] it's not the simplest example either, but probably mainly because it builds multiple packages [11:38] does someone have a Python bug for me? :P [11:39] gah. stupid debian with their stupid mailing list culture [12:17] the command "dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -rfakeroot" gives error "debian/rules: 3: include: not found" what could be the issue here ? [12:18] It starts with "#/bin/sh" rather than "#!/usr/bin/make -f" ? [12:18] StevenK: "#!/usr/bin/make -f" is required ? [12:19] Yes [12:19] It is required to be the first line in the file [12:19] StevenK: was following this guide https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Python [12:20] I think the wiki format misses the shebang line [12:21] StevenK: heh, that was it [12:21] StevenK: now it says python: can't open file 'setup.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory [12:21] Then your source package doesn't include a setup.py file? [12:21] StevenK: but https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Python does not talk about any setup.py [12:22] StevenK: no, any guides on making one ? [12:22] I've corrected the wiki page to show the #!/usr/bin/make -f [12:22] include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/python-distutils.mk [12:22] That assumes python distutils [12:22] StevenK: python-distutils-extra deb package? [12:23] No, it assumes the software you're packaging uses distuils [12:24] StevenK: Err.. i have a few scripts in python that i would like to package and share, hence doing this [12:25] tab_shift: Then you aren't using distuils, I'd suggest dropping the -distutils.mk include and using straight debhelper [12:26] StevenK: using debhelper means this command dh_make -c gpl -s -b ? [12:26] Don't run dh_make again. And it doesn't. [12:27] tab_shift: I'd suggest you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide [12:29] StevenK: thanks, also i don't have a makefile as well, is it mandatory? [12:31] tab_shift: No, you can deal without it [12:34] StevenK: I'll read up & try to figure it out, thanks [13:04] james_w: New debdiff for bug 257007. Thanks for your help :-) [13:04] Launchpad bug 257007 in revelation "[Intrepid] crash / error when using revelation-applet" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/257007 === Kmos_ is now known as Kmos [13:36] * StevenK kicks java [13:36] mcasadevall: Here? :-) [13:37] StevenK, for some definitions of hear [13:37] *here [13:37] mcasadevall: So, I'm trying to update cacao to 0.99.3, and it fails. Mind helping me poke at fixing it? [13:38] why does it fail? === mcasadevall is now known as NCommander [13:38] class file for java.lang.Object not found [13:38] And a whole bunch steming from that [13:39] Which makes me think the bootclasspath isn't getting set. [13:39] Now, setting it to /usr/share/java, /usr/lib or /usr hasn't fixed it [13:39] sounds like loads of fun [13:40] Indeed [13:41] StevenK, it's all yours ;-) [13:42] * NCommander runs [13:42] Hmph [13:42] StevenK, post your work to a PPA, I'll look at it when I wake up [13:42] unless your just trying to compile the straight debian package [13:43] Well, actually, 0.99~rc5 from Debian works. 0.99.3 from upstream doesn't [13:46] heya [13:52] StevenK, maybe there is a reason 0.99.3 isn't in sid or experimental [13:52] morning emgent [13:54] ahoi emgent [13:54] StevenK: did you see my nfdump debdiff? [13:54] StevenK, how are you trying to compile it [13:56] StevenK, and what are you using for --with-classpath-install-dir [14:06] sebner: I did not [14:07] NCommander: I think I know what is sort of going on -- they renamed all of the ./configure options for 0.99.3 [14:07] StevenK: ah, I attached a debdiff and thought you will notice it because you are subscribed to the bug [14:07] StevenK, that needs to be set to the where classpath is [14:08] StevenK, or in other words: http://xkcd.com/293/ [14:10] * StevenK beats NCommander to death [14:10] NCommander: I've been looking at stuff for an hour before I asked, you know [14:10] Ok [14:10] I apologize [14:10] I suspect thats the problem however [14:10] I'll see if I can just compile the tarball here [14:10] I know it was in jest, so shrug :-P [14:11] NCommander R.I. P [14:12] sebner, well, it just happened that StevenK pointed me to that why I was reading xkcd [14:12] StevenK: will you review it or should I subscribe u-u-s? [14:12] NCommander: xD xD xD :D [14:12] Which bug is it? [14:12] I might care [14:13] StevenK: bug #268811 [14:13] Launchpad bug 268811 in nfdump "nfdump 1.5.7-5 introduces an empty -dbg package, while the main package ships unstripped binaries" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/268811 [14:13] sebner: I'm not subscribed [14:14] StevenK: argh sry. the other steve xD [14:16] Muahaha. [14:16] * StevenK wins [14:16] Hew: looks good thanks. I'll upload after lunch. Did you warn Jef about the issue? [14:17] james_w: now you are a hardcore u-u-s guy :D // I'll upload a new debdiff for wordpress later :) [14:18] StevenK, what's your configure string [14:18] sebner: cool, what approach are you going to take? [14:18] james_w: I emailed him before just before you posted. Now that you've checked the new debdiff I'll send off another mail. [14:19] james_w: I have to investigate further but I'm wondering since the fix is from (beginning) 2007 [14:19] NCommander: --with-java-runtime-library-prefix=/usr --disable-disassembler --libdir=/usr/lib/cacao --with-jni_h=/usr/include/classpath --with-jni_md_h=/usr/include/classpath [14:19] Hew: great, thanks. I haven't downloaded and patched to check thoroughly, but I trust you to tell the difference between a tab and a space :-) [14:20] sebner: yeah, I'm not sure I agree with the analysis in the other bug report. I would have to read the CVE and the patch again to know whether we should pull it in [14:20] james_w: Heh, yes. I noticed it before and had a dilemma, whether I should change his patch or leave it for consistency. Tabs are definitely there now :-) [14:20] james_w: I know and I'll do that :) [14:21] Hew: it's something you should change as it can cause failures, I just can't tell you under which circumstances. [14:23] james_w: from a quick look it seems that we really don't need this fix as long as we stick to 2.5.x and not 2.6.x [14:23] james_w: Ah ok, good to know. [14:23] StevenK, it builds fine from source here [14:24] are you build-deping on classpath-common [14:26] james_w: at least we merged the debian version which has the fix ^^ [14:29] james_w: /me is confused. I merged the actual version from Debian and Debian *has* this fix included so we get it as well when we merge it [14:48] NCommander: Yes [14:48] NCommander: It builds, so I'm good [15:13] Hew: uploaded, thanks. [15:13] james_w: excellent, thank you :-) [15:14] ping === allee_ is now known as allee === emma is now known as emma42 === emma42 is now known as emma [16:42] I'm having trouble using pbuilder. I am backporting packages using it (I am on Intrepid, and am trying to build some packages for hardy), but I can't get one package to build because it depends on the others. I tried the method in PbuilderHowto on the wiki for setting up a local repository for pbuilder and using it with pbuilder, but pbuilder still doesn't use it and complains about the packages missing. [16:56] anybody have actual working flashplugin-nonfree in intrepid? [16:57] LaserJock: me [16:57] jussi01: it doesn't take 100% CPU? [16:58] LaserJock: I havent looked exactly, but other programs are running fine with it... I can take a look if you like [16:59] well, I was getting pegged CPU and flickering with 64-bit Intrepid [16:59] so I reinstalled with 32-bit and still the same thing [16:59] LaserJock: nope, its fine here on 32bit [16:59] so I'm assuming it's not specific to my particular install [17:00] I suppose it could be hardware related... [17:00] LaserJock: Im using it in firefox on kubuntu if that helps [17:00] I'm using FF on Ubuntu [17:01] ok, so looks like either ubuntu or your machine specific [17:03] flashplugin-nonfree might also be a good target for a Hug Day [17:03] 174 open bugs and 90 in New status [17:04] heh i jsut came to ask about the flashplugin backport. it says it's 10 but it's really still 9 [17:04] why is that? [17:04] LaserJock, mine was acting similarly because my pulseaudio got messed up again [17:04] on 32 bit [17:04] it seems to be having lots of troubles, but i've not looked into it yet [17:04] superm1: what's "messed up"? [17:05] only works after i kill the daemon, rm ~/.pulse* and then restart the daemon [17:05] and then only works for a limited undetermined period of time [17:07] mcquaid: how do you know that it's 9? [17:08] about:plugins [17:10] mcquaid: and what does dpkg -l | grep flashplugin-nonfree give you for the version? [17:10] 10.0.1.218+10.0.0.525ubuntu1~hardy1+really9.0.124.0ubuntu2 Adobe Flash Player plugin installer [17:11] heh [17:11] heh, ya it's in the file name. what's that all about +really9.0.124 wtf? [17:11] how about 'really' package 10 and i dunno call it 10 [17:11] so my guess is that we had to revert back to 9 [17:11] ah [17:11] mcquaid: it's not exactly that easy [17:13] i understand. i just wanted beta 10, i've never had a problem installing flash manually but can't get it working for some reason [17:13] and i saw there was a backport, i thought ah cool, but then it's really 9, so I'm back where i started [17:13] right [17:14] Flash 10 *was* uploaded to -backports [17:14] but then was reverted to 9 [17:14] do you know the reason for reverting back? [17:14] just curious [17:14] mcquaid: it was crap on hardy [17:15] too bad. read a lot of surprisingly good comments on 10. like fullscreen finally using vid overlay properly [17:15] that's all i wanted [17:15] damn i hate flash [17:16] mcquaid: well 26 days to go ;) [17:16] so flash 10 is fine in intreped? [17:16] intrepid [17:17] mcquaid: well, we have the beta and it's half crappy. maybe the rc or final will be better [17:18] heh. well one can hope [17:18] 'flash 10! now with less crap!!" [17:18] ha [17:19] mcquaid: flash 10 will be a lot better than flash 9. but dunno if still crappy or not ^^ [17:19] give swfdec or gnash a go [17:20] how is swfdec or gnash in regards to vid playback? fullscreen? overlay? [17:20] orly_owl: I tried it and it wasn't that usable for me [17:20] did you compile latest trunk? [17:21] mcquaid: dunno. try it and find out [17:21] #gnash and #swfdec btw [17:22] flash 10 in Intrepid for me sucks because it's taking 100% CPU and flickers [17:23] LaserJock, sigh same old story eh. how hard can it be to use xv? [17:25] LaserJock, is that with video or do you mean other types of flash, like a game or funky menu's etc [17:25] any flash [17:25] well that sucks to hear [17:25] I think anyway [17:26] hello [17:26] folks I have a package I could put into the repositories [17:26] anyone want to advise? [17:26] I think it should go in the multiverse [17:27] everyone in bed? [17:27] hedkandi: well, would it depend on anything in multiverse and what's the license? [17:27] ok [17:27] it depends on two lgpl things [17:27] the licence is pretty much gpl except [17:28] for a clause which says that modifications may not be distributed [17:29] That's enough that it has to go in multiverse [17:29] does it? [17:29] I wasn't actually sure from reading [17:29] the ubuntu pages (which are confused and badly written) [17:30] I actually think some clarification would be good, as to what restricted is about [17:30] when's the next LTS out? [17:30] 2010 [17:30] but anyway, I think I'll be happy with the multiverse [17:30] Yes. Since any modified package would be undistributable, it's not Free software. [17:30] april 2010? [17:30] That's the schedule. [17:31] ish, yes [17:31] ok [17:31] is 8.04 going to stop at 8.04.4? [17:31] hedkandi: is your question Multiverse vs Restricted or Multiverse vs Universe? [17:31] ScottK: well I disagree with your assumption that free means you can distribute modified versions [17:31] hedkandi: It's not mine. It's Debian's and Ubuntu's, but I agree with it. [17:31] hedkandi, yu can disagree, but you're wrong [17:32] hedkandi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms [17:32] i'm usually right 'cos I'm very clever. [17:32] wait, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition [17:32] LaserJock: restricted I think. [17:33] freedom 3, "# improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)" [17:33] hedkandi: ah, well that I can kinda see where there could be some confusion [17:33] hedkandi: but Restricted is really only used for a few special packages [17:34] so basically assume you're not going to get anything into Restricted directly [17:34] is this the place for recommendations? [17:34] resticted is for non-free apps supported by canonical, which basically means nvidia drivers. why do canonical want to offer support for your package? is it that critical? [17:34] LaserJock: ok [17:34] directhex: I don't think that's even quite true [17:34] but I'd be okay in the Multiverse then? [17:34] Restricted is primarily for drivers and non-free "blobs" [17:35] So how would I get my package into the multiverse? [17:35] not just any non-free software, generally speaking [17:35] but even things in multiverse/restricted need to be distributable [17:35] my program is distributable. [17:35] hedkandi: same way you would to get it into Universe [17:36] i would like for code::blocks to move into universe, is there a guide for these things? [17:36] LaserJock: call me ignorant, but could you just remind me of the process please? [17:37] hedkandi: package it, put it on REVU, get 2 MOTU +1 votes [17:37] !REVU [17:37] REVU is a web-based tool to give people who have worked on Ubuntu packages a chance to "put their packages out there" for other people to look at and comment on in a structured manner. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU [17:37] LaserJock: thanx [17:37] good thanks. I didn't know about revu. [17:39] And it's way too late for Intrepid. [17:39] right [17:40] point of general discussion: I think it's bad that other people can wreck my software and distribute it as [17:41] if they've "improved" (haha) it. [17:41] The fact is that there are a lot of incompetent programmers and designers hanging around ubuntu [17:41] and I don't want them playing with my program and introducing bugs and inconsistencies. [17:42] fine, then don't put it in Ubuntu [17:42] I think this is entirely sensible,and the motu would do well to accept that. [17:42] accept what? [17:42] Ie if the people running ubuntu were a little smarter, they would allow software under my licence into ubuntu main. [17:43] I think the motu are being a bit anal in refusing my licence. [17:43] hedkandi, what is your license? [17:43] hedkandi: well, sorry, but we have established principles [17:44] my licence says modified versions may not be distributed [17:44] and one of them is that we are free to modify [17:44] indeed and that's different [17:44] there's no point to having an oss license if you can't redistribute it [17:44] no [17:44] that's like, a fundamental right [17:44] hedkandi: so, you want something that aint free mislabeled and supported by canonical? [17:45] my licence comes under the "free" banner. [17:45] well, by any definition of Free software I've seen, it doesn't [17:45] i aint free to change it and redistrobute it, which is one of "three freedoms" [17:46] hedkandi: One thing that is supported is a license condition that if you change it you have to rename it. [17:46] if gpl'd software was "free" I'd be able to modify it, and then sell it. So I think your definition of free is contrived [17:47] hedkandi: aint you? [17:47] ScottK: tell me more?? [17:47] That way modifcations can be distributed, but the 'name' of your package doesn't get 'tainted'. [17:48] There is an interesting distinction to be made, actually, between a 'modification' and a 'modified version' [17:48] or better yet, you could work with Ubuntu to make sure the modifications are "good" [17:48] step 1: introduce a debian/ folder [17:48] step 2: IT'S MODIFIED, GAME OVER! [17:48] hedkandi: See DFSG #4 http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [17:49] LaserJock: indeed, but ultimately that decision should be made by me. [17:49] hedkandi: That's exactly why it's not Free software. You are retaining control over it. [17:50] I'm allowing modifications, so I'm not. [17:50] you're not allowing modifications. you're providing a read-only copy of the source [17:50] wake up folks [17:50] and conveniently ignoring that you can't make a package without introducing "changes" in the form of the debian/ package structure [17:50] I'm allowing modifications, but I'm forbidding their distribution. [17:50] hedkandi, you know this has been covered more than once in debian's history, right? there's precedent? [17:51] hedkandi, you're talking about the PINE license. [17:51]