Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:34:41 +0100
Jan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 01/08/2008 05:22 PM, JackTheDipper wrote :
> >> ./install-sh is also not licenced under the GPL(2+)...
> >>   
> > to be honest, i looked at some other debian source packages (e.g.
> > nautilus and serpentine) and couldn't find an entry in debian/copyright
> > for install-sh... so, what would i have to add there?

Nothing, nless it is modified, then maybe. Typically, upstream, it is:
install-sh -> /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh

(A modified install-sh is rare - if there is a difference it may simply
be an old version rather than a modified script.)

> Do you know about the script licensecheck? It's contained in the devscripts
> package. I just stumbled upon it some time ago. Running
> $ licensecheck install-sh
> gives
>   install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
> 
> If I am not mistaken, you have to cite the whole license anyway in
> debian/copyright...

Not quite. Generated / symlinked files do not need to be included
(otherwise every autotools package would have to declare the BSD
licence.) I suppose it would be nice if licensecheck had an option to
ignore such files but this is easier upstream than in the actual
package because the autotools will convert the upstream symlink into a
real file for obvious reasons.

licensecheck is v.v.useful but it is mostly used for the source
directory.

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpo8BFIGV3fy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: smplayer - complete front-end for MPlayer

[Sikon]

Addressed the issues mentioned.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

[José Sánchez Moreno]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> Dear mentors,
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog".
> 
> * Package name: gnomecatalog
>   Version : 0.3.1-1.0

> That '.0' at the end isn't necessary.

Lintian notify a warning without it.

I can remove it if you want

>   Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream]
> * URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site]
> * License : [fill in]

> *cough*

> It builds these binary packages:
> gnomecatalog - Cataloging software for CD, DVD, and hard disk files

> Do you have a long description?

Long description

Cataloging software for CDs and DVDs.
 
Catalog your dvds/cds and files.

Generate thumbnails of the files in your disks via gnome thumbnailers
and saves it for using in database.

Save the metadata of the files. You can search in the metatada of mp3,
avis, images (exif).
 
Requirements
This application requires GTK+ version 2.8.x. Other dependencies
include:
python-gtk2 (>2.3.96), python-pyvorbis, python-pysqlite2, python-gnome2,
python-mmpython 


Regards
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> > 
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog".
> > 
> > * Package name: gnomecatalog
> >   Version : 0.3.1-1.0
> 
> > That '.0' at the end isn't necessary.
> 
> Lintian notify a warning without it.
> 
> I can remove it if you want

The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the
correct fix.

Is this the NMU warning?

You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You
must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as
you use in debian/control.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

RFS: azr3-jack

[Lars Luthman]

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "azr3-jack".

* Package name: azr3-jack
  Version : 1.0.2-1
  Upstream Author : Lars Luthman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ll-plugins.nongnu.org/azr3/
* License : GPL
  Section : sound

It builds these binary packages:
azr3-jack  - A Hammond organ simulator

The package appears to be lintian clean.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/azr3-jack
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main 
contrib non-free
- dget 
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/azr3-jack/azr3-jack_1.0.2-1.dsc

I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.

Kind regards
 Lars Luthman


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[JackTheDipper]

JackTheDipper wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
>   
>> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
>> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
>> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> #
>> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
>> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
>> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext functionality.
>> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
>>
>> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing 
>> is 
>> not approriate for legalize.
>> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.
>>   
>> 
> It's the same automatically generated file as used by any other
> gettextized software i know (like, again, nautilus and serpentine.. or
> other GNOME projects), including the license.. and including the "file
> file" bug. Are you sure that this is really not suited for Debian main? :(
>   
This is indeed a wide-spread problem. The maintainer of the debian
package of intltool (jordi) has already been notified and a bug against
GNOME's intltool has been filed (
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508320 ).

As I'm not allowed to change the license on my own and due to the fact
that (almost?) all internationalized GNOME projects and many more are
shipping with this file - also the corresponding debian packages - , i
guess, this bug shouldn't prevent this package from being uploaded.

I don't know if a lintian rule would be good to tell all packagers to
fix the license (once a fixed version is available) or if it's enough to
just wait for fixed GNOME projects.


Any other comments on this package or is it ready now?
Werner


P.S.: The mentioned gpl utility is NOT by the FSF but belongs to the
autotools package, sorry (see
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~iam/docs/tutorial.html , section "Invoking
the `gpl' utility" for more information).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

[José Sánchez Moreno]

On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: 
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > > Dear mentors,
> > > 
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog".
> > > 
> > > * Package name: gnomecatalog
> > >   Version : 0.3.1-1.0
> > 
> > > That '.0' at the end isn't necessary.
> > 
> > Lintian notify a warning without it.
> > 
> > I can remove it if you want
> 
> The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the
> correct fix.
> 
> Is this the NMU warning?
> 
> You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You
> must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as
> you use in debian/control.




Many thanks. I have correct the issue. 

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnomecatalog/

Regards


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:17:59 +0100
JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> JackTheDipper wrote:
> > Holger Levsen wrote:
> >   
> >> ./po/Makefile.in.in also looks problematic:
> >> # Makefile for program source directory in GNU NLS utilities package.
> >> # Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 by Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> #
> >> # This file file be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
> >> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU Public License
> >> # but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext 
> >> functionality.
> >> # Please note that the actual code is *not* freely available.
> >>
> >> 1. I guess this should read s/This file file/This file can/ - but guessing 
> >> is 
> >> not approriate for legalize.
> >> 2. It doesn't allow modifications -> not suited for Debian main.

It is perfectly acceptable in main - that phrase refers to the fact that
the code is licenced, not public domain.

Free software does not have to be freely available in terms of "change
without any restrictions" - changes to GPL software is specifically
allowed ONLY under the strict copyleft restrictions of the GPL.

"change without restriction" would allow GPL software to be made
proprietary, as can be done with public domain code.

If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see
this notice:

# This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
# be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public
# License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext
# functionality.
# Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU
# General Public License and is *not* in the public domain.

This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpOBPNXzHT4X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:36 +0100
JackTheDipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > ./src/Makefile.am says its some kind of public domain, while 
> > debian/copyright 
> > says the software is GPL2+... this is the case for many files like this in 
> > your software. Being offline currently I cannot easily check if this is ok, 

Public domain code is compatible with the GPL but the reverse is not
true. You can include public domain code in any project, free or not.

> I created these (and almost all other files) with the gpl utility by the
> FSF. In this case I used `gpl -am` to create a properly licensed
> Makefile.am  at least, that is what the gpl tool is supposed to do.

If you are the sole copyright holder for these files, it is probably
best to use a genuine GPL notice in the file instead.

> > ./src/combobox.cc says it's licenced under the GPL2+, while it also says 
> > it's 
> > based on gtkmm's comboboxtext.cc which is licensed under the GNU LGPL - I'm 
> > not sure you can do that. (Modify a LGPL licenced work and distribute the 
> > result under the GPL(2+).) 

Yes, you can. Again, you cannot do the reverse. LGPL is weaker than GPL
and combining code into one project migrates all code to the strongest
compatible licence. The LGPL and GPL are carefully managed to remain
compatible in this manner.

> IANAL, but I asked in their chatroom and some of them said that this is ok.
> The FSF says: "Every version of the LGPL gives you permission to
> relicense the code under the corresponding version, or any later
> version, of the GPL. In these cases, you can combine the code if you
> migrate its license to GPLv3, and use GPLv3 for your own work as well."
> source: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq#compat-matrix-footnote-8

Correct.

> > And, "btw" this feels strange when reading it:
> > # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
> > # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without 
> > # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
> > In my book, it's not a _special exception_ in the free software world to 
> > give 
> > unlimited permission to copy/distribute/modify... :-)
> >   
> heh.. well, this file is just created by the FSF gpl utility. I guess it
> means a special exception to a personal copyright and I don't think that
> "free software" is a concept of law and implies that exceptions ;-) but
> I don't know... i thought that using FSF tools consequently to create
> license headers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh*

If it's your own file, put a proper GPL notice in place of this. It
does sound unnecessary.

> > ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced 
> > and 
> > not just refer to the software licence.
> >   
> ok, that will be changed with the next upstream version if this is ok.

Usually, all po files just say "released under the same licence as the
package itself".

-- 

Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/


pgpPPhMyaGujY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

[L. Redrejo]

El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 18:24 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno escribió:
> On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: 
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > > > Dear mentors,
> > > > 
> > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog".
> > > > 
> > > > * Package name: gnomecatalog
> > > >   Version : 0.3.1-1.0
> > > 
> > > > That '.0' at the end isn't necessary.
> > > 
> > > Lintian notify a warning without it.
> > > 
> > > I can remove it if you want
> > 
> > The lintian warning is there for a reason, but adding .0 is not the
> > correct fix.
> > 
> > Is this the NMU warning?
> > 
> > You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You
> > must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as
> > you use in debian/control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks. I have correct the issue. 
> 
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gnomecatalog/

Hi José, just a couple of questions:
- Compiling the package on debian sid, it fails because of the python
stuff in debian/rules. You're forcing using python 2.5 in debian/rules
but there's not such build-dependency. Removing the
"DEB_PYTHON_COMPILE_VERSION = 2.5" line, the package compiles perfectly
with 2.4, so I don't understand that line.
Anyway , the package does not follow current Debian Python policy, you
should take a look to http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy.
For this package, current Python policy is quite simple so you should
not have any problem to fix it, if you have some questions don't doubt
in asking to this list. I would recommend you using python-support as
replacing dh_python by python-support is trivial.

- Your postinst is maintaining some old debhelper generated code and it
should be deleted. In fact, you can test that this is all you need in
the file:
#!/bin/sh
#DEBHELPER#

- Please, remove the commented lines in debian/rules as they're useless.

- I've seen you have not a spanish comment in the .desktop file of the
application. According to your name it seems you can add it :-). If not,
tell it to me and I'll send the right spanish sentence to you.

Regards.
José L.



signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada	digitalmente

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

[Justin Pryzby]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:14:50PM +0100, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote:
> El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 18:24 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno escribió:
> > On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: 
> > > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:29 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:02:02PM +0100, José Sánchez Moreno wrote:
> > > > > Dear mentors,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnomecatalog".
> > > > > 
> > > > > * Package name: gnomecatalog
> > > > >   Version : 0.3.1-1.0
> > > > 

> Hi José, just a couple of questions:

> - Your postinst is maintaining some old debhelper generated code and it
> should be deleted. In fact, you can test that this is all you need in
> the file:
> #!/bin/sh
> #DEBHELPER#
If the postinst can be generated from scratch by debhelper, then just
remove it entirely.  It's sufficiently intelligent to eg. add set -e
in that case (I don't know if that would happen with a
shebang+template maintscripts).

Justin

Re: libcwd: one or two packages?

[Carlo Wood]

My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost...
The subject was "libcwd: one or two packages?".
The Message-ID was [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I'm "replying" to a local CC now).

Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both
posts that I mailed to this list not appear on the
list?

This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates
like 90% of all spam that I get, and on the other
hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/. May I suggest
to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and
always allow all posts by subscribers?

-- 
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libcwd: one or two packages?

[Cyril Brulebois]

On 09/01/2008, Carlo Wood wrote:
> My mail, posted to this list on Jan 8, is ALSO lost... The subject
> was "libcwd: one or two packages?". The Message-ID was
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I'm "replying" to a local CC now).

> Can someone tell me what is going on? Why did both posts that I mailed
> to this list not appear on the list?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00011.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/01/msg00013.html

Note that you can request to be whitelisted. See “whitelist” on
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe

> This is tiresome - on one hand this list generates like 90% of all
> spam that I get, and on the other hand my mails are /dev/null-ed :/.
> May I suggest to just refuse all mails from non-subscribers, and
> always allow all posts by subscribers?

Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite
inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a
list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting
Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies).

Cheers,

-- 
Cyril Brulebois


pgpc4q4RCZ8xf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libcwd: one or two packages?

[Carlo Wood]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:43PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hopefully things will get better. Hard moderations rules are quite
> inconvenient anyway (like you have one or two questions to ask on a
> list, and have to temporary subscribe, instead of setting
> Reply-To/asking people to keep you in Cc in their replies).

The way it is now, MY spam filters assign a value of +24 to
mail from debian-mentors@lists.debian.org as "auto white list",
because the ammount of average spam is SO freaking high, that
basically it assumes everything is... That can't be a good thing.
(My threshold for spam +5). The only reason I see this mail is
because it has 'libcwd' in the Subject line :p

I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it
doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content.

Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added
to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please?

-- 
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libcwd: one or two packages?

[Cord Beermann]

Hallo! Du (Carlo Wood) hast geschrieben:

[ftr again: the outburst of spam yesterday happened accidently and
should be fixed now.]

> I still don't understand why my mail disappeared though, it
> doesn't contain anything NEAR spammy content.

i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so
if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list,
check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send
us a message:

To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us
with more information.

Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible)

 * the IP, 
 * the Time (including timezone), 
 * the Message-Id, 
 * the Adresses you sent from and to, 
 * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem.

We maintain a system with more than 15 subscribers which gets
and sends a lot more than 100 Mails a day, without that 
information we have no chance to find out what went wrong.

> Anyway, before I post again, I suppose I need to be added
> to a white list for [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe.

Yours,
Cord, Debian Listmaster of the day
-- 
http://lists.debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

[Morten Kjeldgaard]

On 09/01/2008, at 1.45, Charles Plessy wrote:


For the copyright files, you may be interested by the proposed
machine-parsable format described in the following link. Although no
parser has been written yet, it could be useful to start to use it:
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat


A very interesting proposal! I will certainly start to use that format.


About the manpages, many thanks for writing them. Have you considered
submitting them upstream ?


Yes, I will send them. I wrote the man pages because I first included  
the "example" programs in the package as binaries. However, I later  
decided that they were not really robust enough to justify their  
presence as "real" applications. So I kept the manpages, but put them  
with the examples.



I have a few comments specific to btk-core:
  - why providing libbtk-core-dev but not libbtk-core ?


Upstream does not build shared libraries, so there is no need for it.  
I have chosen not to build shared libraries, because I would have to  
choose a soname, and if upstream at some point decides to offer a  
shared library, we could be in trouble.



  - libbtk-core-dev should probably be in the libdevel section.


Yes it could. Upstream defines the intended audience as "Developers,  
Science/Research". I assumed the package would appeal more to  
scientists than "ordinary" developers, so I chose the "science"  
category. I have no strong opinions on the matter, however.



  - in your changelog, a colon is missing: (Closes: #459753)


Fixed.


  - how about packaging the docs as well ?


I assume you mean the doxygen documentation. I seem to remember I had  
problems generating it, so I let it be, but I can take another look  
at it. Of course the documentation should be available to the  
programmer!


Cheers,
Morten

PS: I am quite often on IRC. If anyone wants to chat, I will be in  
#debian-med and #debian-mentors whenever possible.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

[Charles Plessy]

Le Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:58:09PM +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard a écrit :
> 
> >  - libbtk-core-dev should probably be in the libdevel section.
> 
> Yes it could. Upstream defines the intended audience as "Developers,  
> Science/Research". I assumed the package would appeal more to  
> scientists than "ordinary" developers, so I chose the "science"  
> category. I have no strong opinions on the matter, however.

I have no strong opinion about this either. But note that the source
package can be in section Science and the -dev package in the libdevel
section.  Also, once born the package will be "debtagged", see
http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/todo.html?maint=debian-med-packaging%40lists.alioth.debian.org

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: RFS: nettee

[Joel Franco]

Hi Cyril,

I have made the suggestions that you show me.

Thank You.

ps: I'm still needing a sponsor :(

On Wed Jan 09 08 02:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>On 09/01/2008, Joel Franco wrote:
>> I do not understand what means "serverstats or webissues in
>> lenny/sid".  Where can i read about it?
>
>apt-get source one or the other, then look at debian/copyright.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-- 
>Cyril Brulebois



-- 
|
| Joel Franco Guzmán  .''`.
|  self-powered by   : :' :
|   Debian Linux `. `' 
|  `- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: RFS: nettee

[Joel Franco]

Test.

On Wed Jan 09 08 02:22, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>On 09/01/2008, Joel Franco wrote:
>> I do not understand what means "serverstats or webissues in
>> lenny/sid".  Where can i read about it?
>
>apt-get source one or the other, then look at debian/copyright.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-- 
>Cyril Brulebois



-- 
|
| Joel Franco Guzmán  .''`.
|  self-powered by   : :' :
|   Debian Linux `. `' 
|  `- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libcwd: one or two packages?

[Carlo Wood]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:26:15PM +, Cord Beermann wrote:
> i can't find anything containing your mailadress in our dropboxes, so
> if it happens again, that mail from you doesn't go through to a list,
> check with the Listarchive and if it isn't there after two hours, send
> us a message:
> 
> To enable us investigating errors or problems you should provide us
> with more information.
> 
> Helpful would be: (we don't need all, provide as much as possible)
> 
>  * the IP, 

I sent it to a smart host. The routing should be same
as any other message that I sent (as well as this one).

>  * the Time (including timezone), 

I sent my third message at 10 Jan 03:41:02 CET, that is 02:41:02 UTC.

>  * the Message-Id, 

The Message-ID was: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Note how it contains the time in UTC.

>  * the Adresses you sent from and to, 

I sent this message to debian-mentors@lists.debian.org of course,
and from [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>  * maybe some more things that could be related with that problem.

I have subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] around 02:29:46 UTC,
just before sending my last message. This did not help.

Since all my other mails got through, it has to be something
in the body of the message, possibly the URL that I have in it.
However, that you'd /dev/null messages of SUBSCRIBED people who
are even on the whitelist, would be behond me - so I reall don't
know what to think of it.

> http://lists.debian.org/whitelist is the thing you should subscribe.

Done, thus. Didn't help.

-- 
Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: gnome-color-chooser

[Russ Allbery]

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If the upstream uses gettextize instead of glib_gettextize, you see
> this notice:
>
> # This file can be copied and used freely without restrictions.  It can
> # be used in projects which are not available under the GNU General Public
> # License but which still want to provide support for the GNU gettext
> # functionality.
> # Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU
> # General Public License and is *not* in the public domain.
>
> This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with what was clearly upstream's *intent*, but
that notice by itself does not grant any permission to modify that file.
You're assuming that it's covered by the GPL, and I expect upstream is
assuming that too, but the notice doesn't actually *say* that.

I think it's buggy wording rather than a problematic license, but the
wording is buggy.  I expect upstream really intends something more like
the license Automake uses.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]