On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> > For the packages I maintain, I now refrain from doing so when the contents
> > of
> > the debian directory are trivial.
>
> I guess you don't bother to claim copyright for trivial debian/* files.
>
> When there is no copyright and
Hi Charles,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:00:49AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that it would be preferrable to refrain from adding special keywords
> to
> the License field, to guarantee that it contains only license information. I
> would therefore recommend using the Files-Excluded fiel
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:13:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:07AM +0200, Nick Andrik a écrit :
> >
> > My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
>
> Hi,
>
> Not all Debian source packages contain license or copyright notices for the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Nick Andrik wrote:
> The main reason I decided to deal with unrar is because of e-book
> reader calibre needing the libunrar.so library [1] in order to read
> CBR files.
I see.
> Can unar provide such an interface?
It is LGPL, so it could be made to provide suc
>> I guess you meant
>> > unrar-nonfree can probably be removed from Debian now that we have
>> > unrar-free?
>
> Definitely not, since unrar-free does not support the RAR format
> versions that unrar-nonfree or unar support. I suggest we can probably
> remove unrar-free and unrar-nonfree now that
2013/1/10 Paul Wise :
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Nick Andrik wrote:
>
>> Recently I was trying to convert the debian/copyright file of a
>> non-free package ( unrar-nonfree ) to 1.0 format.
>> The main license of this software is non-free (mainly because it does
>> not allow reverse engine
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 06:26 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> We have unrar-nonfree that builds the binary package unrar and
> unrar-free that builds the binary package unrar-free.
We also have unar that builds the binary package unar.
> I guess you meant
> > unrar-nonfree can probably be removed from
Le Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:07AM +0200, Nick Andrik a écrit :
>
> My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
Hi,
Not all Debian source packages contain license or copyright notices for the
files in the debian directory. It is therefore not strictly required to
spec
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Nick Andrik wrote:
> Recently I was trying to convert the debian/copyright file of a
> non-free package ( unrar-nonfree ) to 1.0 format.
> The main license of this software is non-free (mainly because it does
> not allow reverse engineering of the RAR algorithm) b
Nick Andrik writes:
> My problem was when I had to specify a license for the debian/* files.
> I contacted the people that own the copyright of those files proposing a
> default license of GPL2+ (no strong feelings about that, just a
> suggestion).
> I was told that debian/copyright contains the
Hi!
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:32:54 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
> > I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> > the valid package types. There's already a Package-Type field for that
> > (defau
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
* Package name: ppsspp
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Henrik Rydgård
* URL : http://www.ppsspp.org/
* License : GPL2+
PSPSDK BSD-compatible license
Programming Lang: C, C+
Le Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> From my point of view we should now discuss first what way to prefer:
> Either the 'Files-Excluded' field or 'License: not-shipped-by-debian'
> should be used and we should decide now before we keep on implementing
> it. I have
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
retitle 697433 New fields Package-List and Package-Type.
usertags 697433 normative discussion
thanks
Le Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 02:42:30PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>
> I don't think the description for the Package-List field should document
> the valid
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: package.debian.org"):
> Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
> > I'm investigating about debian website systems.
> > I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
> > But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any wher
Thank you so much.
On 1/9/2013 6:10 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
Hi,
My name is Loc.
I'm investigating about debian website systems.
I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
But i cannot get source code of packa
Hi,
Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013 à 17:33 +0700, lochd a écrit :
> Hi,
> My name is Loc.
>
> I'm investigating about debian website systems.
> I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
> But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any where.
>
> So, could i have it'
Hi,
My name is Loc.
I'm investigating about debian website systems.
I already could get data of bugs tracking system and webwml.
But i cannot get source code of package.debian.org from any where.
So, could i have it's source code?
Thank you very much and best regards
Loc
--
Hoang Duc Loc (Mr)
18 matches
Mail list logo
