On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martin Erik Werner wrote: > Hello again, upstream has now released Red Eclipse 1.2 and hence this is > partly a RFS, partly a re-review request. ... > [1] > Is this motivation good enough for not using stand-alone Enet?
Hmm, I don't have a good answer for that. > [2] > I have argumented that we should treat this as Public Domain, but gotten > no clear answer if it is good enough for Debian, see > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/01/msg00004.html > I have contacted the author (no response yet) with a request for CC0 > clarification, but is this really a necessity? An FTP Assistant seems to think thats fine, good enough for me then: <Tolimar> arand: Seems okay to me, as we have a quite clear indication of the authors will. > [3] > I've tried adding at least the compressed maps types to file(1), see > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652988 , the other > things I'm unsure how I would do, cubescript in particular has no good > indicator, apart from a .cfg file ending :/ Thanks. > [4] > List of duplicates have been forwarded, but it's mostly a wontfix since > linking isn't as easy on windows. What about removing the dupes and only referring to the remaining files? > [5] > I have removed ${shlibs:Depends} from the -dbg packages, is this > correct? I think so yeah. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6FKCKrJevxUAKKyLL=oXyUyG-oqf0CC2B965i=0sd_...@mail.gmail.com
