Bug#542490: packaging tabmixplus

2010-01-05 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:29 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > There are some things to improve: > > * License are connected with or instead of a comma: "License: MPL-1.1 or > GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+" > > * The initial developer should be listed in Copyright, too. > > * The "license block" (BEGIN LICENS

Bug#542490: packaging tabmixplus

2010-01-05 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
Oops,... sent to early ;) Hi. Sorry for the late reply,.. On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:29 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > There are some things to improve: > * License are connected with or instead of a comma: "License: MPL-1.1 or > GPL-2+ or LGPL-2.1+" Done. > * The initial developer should be l

Bug#542490: packaging tabmixplus

2009-12-22 Thread Benjamin Drung
Am Sonntag, den 20.12.2009, 04:18 +0100 schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer: > Hi. > > > Sorry for my late reply... > > > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 01:36 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > I have done the fun part [1] of packaging this extension. You can find > > the results in the pkg-mozext git reposi

Bug#542490: packaging tabmixplus

2009-12-19 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
Hi. Sorry for my late reply... On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 01:36 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote: > I have done the fun part [1] of packaging this extension. You can find > the results in the pkg-mozext git repository [2]. There are two things > missing: Great... hope we'll see it soon on the new list ;)

Bug#542490: packaging tabmixplus

2009-12-19 Thread Benjamin Drung
Hi, I have done the fun part [1] of packaging this extension. You can find the results in the pkg-mozext git repository [2]. There are two things missing: 1. a long description 2. debian/copyright (in DEP-5 [3] recommended) Who wants to do these two things? It's unlikely that I will do this. [1