PEAR packages
See announce on http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-
pear/2011-May/000106.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00188.html
> >
> > Currently the Pear team claims to be "in the process of resolving this
> > situation" (see Pear request #5473).
>
> What does it mean? Is the problem already solved? Can I upload the packages?
No, it is not solved. To be sp
On Wednesday 26 of October 2005 20:02, Charles Fry wrote:
> This issue has already been explained and discussed on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> debian-legal@lists.debian.org):
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/200
> Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue.
> The reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
>
> I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
> licensed with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports
> with critical se
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
>> But now where you compiled the list I dont want to take the glory away
>> From you, so feel free to do it yourself. :)
> I could just clone the original bugreport. What do you think?
Whatever you find more attractive. :)
--
bye Joerg
Linus: "Wenn
> > php-auth - 3.0
> > php-date - 3.0
> > php-db - 3.0
> > php-file - 3.0
> > php-html-template-it - 2.0
> > php-http - 3.0
> > php-imlib - 2.0
> > php-mail - 2.0
> > php-net-checkip - 2.0
> > php-net-smtp - 2.0
> > php-net-socket - 2.0
> > php-services-weather - 2.0
> > php-xml-parser - 3.0
> > Ar
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
> I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP License:
> php-auth - 3.0
> php-date - 3.0
> php-db - 3.0
> php-file - 3.0
> php-html-template-it - 2.0
> php
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>
> As Jörg stated in his reject mail: "The reason for this decision is the
> license which does not really fit the package.". Not: this license is
> non-free!
>
Yep, it's like a license which would be BSD-like but claims to be
from
Petter Reinholdtsen schrieb am Dienstag, den 04. Oktober 2005:
> [Joerg Jaspert]
> > Another pointer:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
>
+snip+
> So perhaps the license is free according to DFSG?
Of course its free. But it only fits to php itself. If you wan't to use
[Joerg Jaspert]
> Another pointer:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
Are you sure you get this right. When I read the license, it look
like a bad choosen license for PEAR (because of all the references to
PHP), but not like a non-free license. The fact that the PHP nam
On Monday 03 of October 2005 18:12, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> severity serious.
>
> Another pointer:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP
On 10431 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
> reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
NEW, not incoming.
> I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
> licensed
> with PHP Lic
Hello.
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are licensed
with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports with critical
se
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> At the time, James talked to Adam Conrad and me about the packages, and
> we agreed with the decision to hold the packages out of the archive for
> the time being. For one thing, it looks like you packaged *all* PEAR
> modules available, including some
Hi Piotr,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> A week ago James rejected my PEAR packages. I need this packages because
> there are newer version than libraries in php4-pear package. There are
> used by IMP and other applications. I don't like t
A week ago James rejected my PEAR packages. I need this packages because
there are newer version than libraries in php4-pear package. There are
used by IMP and other applications. I don't like to install PEAR
repository with bundled 'pear' installer as far as I've got Debian
16 matches
Mail list logo
