Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-03 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I know, but I prefer (and I'm using) mod-spamhaus because: Fair enough, I've uploaded the package. Thanks for your work, please mail debian-mentors for future uploads and I'll upload if I am able. -- bye, pabs

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-03 Thread Giuseppe Iuculano
Paul Wise ha scritto: > Sorry about this, but I just noticed that there is already a DNSBL > module for apache2 in Debian (libapache2-mod-defensible). Please > investigate if mod-spamhaus is useful to add despite that. > Yes, I know, but I prefer (and I'm using) mod-spamhaus because: 1) I can ch

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-03 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fixed and uploaded again on mentors. Sorry about this, but I just noticed that there is already a DNSBL module for apache2 in Debian (libapache2-mod-defensible). Please investigate if mod-spamhaus is useful to add des

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-03 Thread Giuseppe Iuculano
Paul Wise ha scritto: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.7-1.dsc > > Some more things: > > Your package description needs some grammar fixes, please ask for a > review on deb

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Upstream's license grant is unclear about the GPL version; "either > version 3 of the License." doesn't make sense. In addition, the Makefile and the source code say it is GPL v2 or later. I think upstream should make up thei

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.7-1.dsc Some more things: Your package description needs some grammar fixes, please ask for a review on debian-l10n-english. You don't specify

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Giuseppe Iuculano
Paul Wise ha scritto: > A review of your source package: > > debian/watch should use the standard sf qa redirector, please read the > uscan manual page. > > The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you > might want to ask them to fix that. > > There is a new upstream versi

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a LICENSE file, isn't it enough? License and copyright holder are two different things. Licenses specify what you are allowed to do with the work, the copyright holder information tells you who is giving you a

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Giuseppe Iuculano
Paul Wise ha scritto: > > The upstream source does not contain any copyright information, you > might want to ask them to fix that. There is a LICENSE file, isn't it enough? Giuseppe. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-11-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mod-spamhaus/mod-spamhaus_0.6-1.dsc A review of your source package: debian/watch should use the standard sf qa redirector, please read the uscan manual page. The upstrea

Bug#503395: RFS: mod-spamhaus

2008-10-25 Thread Giuseppe Iuculano
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mod-spamhaus". * Package name: mod-spamhaus Version : 0.5-1 Upstream Author : Luca Ercoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/mod-spamhaus/ * License : GPL Section : web