On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 21:52 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> tag 516250 patch
> thanks
>
> Attached mbox implements a check based on Paul's work specific to the
> non-free
> files. The tag description needs some tweaking, though.
Committed with a (slightly) fleshed out description, thanks. Th
tag 516250 patch
thanks
Attached mbox implements a check based on Paul's work specific to the non-free
files. The tag description needs some tweaking, though.
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
lintian-flash_non-free.mbox
Description: application/
Paul Wise writes:
> I guess this bug should be closed then, I doubt there will be a time
> when anyone is motivated to package flash stuff properly without lintian
> naggery.
I honestly think that's too pessimistic. :) We've had groups package
Javascript libraries without any Lintian naggery,
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 19:34 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In this particular case, I think the best path forward would be to form a
> Flash packaging group that takes as their mission packaging the common
> code -- in other words, being proactive at developing the solution instead
> of trying to pu
Paul Wise writes:
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 19:21 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There probably isn't much that Lintian can do directly about this until
>> separate packages exist that people can use. Once that's true, we can
>> start doing the same thing we do with PHP and Javascript libraries,
>>
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 19:21 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There probably isn't much that Lintian can do directly about this until
> separate packages exist that people can use. Once that's true, we can
> start doing the same thing we do with PHP and Javascript libraries,
> though.
I think lintian
Paul Wise writes:
> I was perusing the list of .swf (flash executables) files in the archive:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sid&searchon=contents&keywords=.swf
>
> I note the following files that should probably not be there and the
> corresponding software should instead be package
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:51 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> -
> http://weblogs.macromedia.com/flashjavascript/readme.html
> http://www.macromedia.com/go/flashjavascript
>
> BSD-like: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/flashjavascript/licens
Package: lintian
Version: 2.2.5
Severity: wishlist
I was perusing the list of .swf (flash executables) files in the archive:
http://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sid&searchon=contents&keywords=.swf
I note the following files that should probably not be there and the
corresponding software sho
9 matches
Mail list logo
