Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Am 2016-08-25 um 06:52 schrieb Tobias Frost: Am Mittwoch, den 24.08.2016, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Elmar Stellnberger: The license in use, C-FSL v1.0 will still need to be reviewed. A predecessor license C-FSL v0.8 had already been discussed on debian-legal some time ago. However v1.0 has been reworked basing on the input I had received from there and should now hopefully be without issues. I think one recommendation has not been followed. If not, I *strongly* recommend: PLEASE Do not run your own license. See https://people.debian.org/~bap/ dfsg-faq.html §5 I took me some time to locate this license (please put it somewhere and link to it). The license is online under https://www.elstel.org/license. The URL may be a bit hard to find and if you like I can link it from https://www.elstel.org/software/. You are right; the URL should probably be referred to in the license itself. If you have any further improvements towards locating the license then please let me know. I located it then in the header of the xchroot script, and as I only had 5 minutes to take a look, I come only to this sentence: "If a specific version number is mentioned then usage rights include this version as well as any newer version which will always be similar in spirit to this license. The term Convertible Free Software license may be abbreviated as C-FSL." - This will fail the the tentacle of evil test. - What happens if there is no version number attached? Choose any? Choose latest? It should not fail the tentacle of evil test as the user of the program may choose which version of the license to execute: the version mentioned with the programme or any newer version. It quasi gives any new author the right to re-license within C-FSL. As the original author never looses his/her copyright he can always re-license (whatever the previous license may look like: BSD/GPL/...); i.e. you can never (fully) shield against the case of an evil author re-licensing proprietarily under any given license of the universe - with BSD that is not even intended. The right to switch to a newer version is up to anyone who receives a program under C-FSL and it does not forbid to keep an elder version of the license if you prefer that. This is due to the principal of legal certainity taking precedence over correctness of law and it is a basic principle in any legal system I know. The clause has just been invented to alleviate me from the pain of having to re-publish existing programs with a newer version of the license (in which case both versions can be applied forever). no version number attached: you have a good point in it as we had already discussed v0.8 of the license which was never meant to be executed in practice; I should have included the version to default to 1.0 at least; not sure what it would take to make this good. "3. It is your obligation that the changed version of your sources will be available to the public for free within the time frame of a month at least if there is no undue hindrance by the authors to make it available. " As distribution is not limited to the people using the stuff, this is non-free. Fails Desert Island Test and Dissident Tests. You have a good point in this! Thanks for your input. I should mention: "You may always distribute a product under C-FSL in unchanged form. ..."; otherwise if you change or execute the term 'use' would clearly apply to my believe. (I have stopped here... Above is not a complete analysis of any section, also not up to 3.I) PLEASE do not run your own license. Yes, I know that usage of an own license is discouraged due to the many issues that may arise. However I do certainly have a point in creating this license as I wanna keep the right to re-license which is not included by GPL. BSD on the other hand has no provisions against making software licensed under BSD non-free be it by the application of patents, DRM or other stuff. I do also know that the KDE team had a problem with their license when Apple came to publish their respective amendments in the sources of Safari. They do not run and will never run on OSS and this makes Apple publishing their sources rather useless to the OSS community. Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch their GPL-ed sources. -- tobi If anyone here would be ready to further investigate C-FSL I will highly appreciate your effort in doing so. Why not have a discussion at debian-legal? I`d personally like to get the issues with it resolved as soon as possible. Otherwise if you believe that I do not have sufficient stance to do so by the software I have currently released then I would need to wait ... Elmar
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Hi, > Yes, I know that usage of an own license is discouraged due to the >many issues that may arise. However I do certainly have a point in >creating this license as I wanna keep the right to re-license which is >not included by GPL. I don't want to start a new thread, because I really try to avoid licenses issues, and I have really little knowledge on the topic, but what about: GPL-2+-with-relicense-exception. I see many GPL-2 similar-looking licenses, with some special exceptions, e.g. "In addition to the above license, you can relicense this software in whatever form you want, with a special exception: you can't do foo and bar if you change the license" or whatever, IANAL G.
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Am 2016-08-25 um 10:45 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna: I see many GPL-2 similar-looking licenses, with some special exceptions, e.g. "In addition to the above license, you can relicense this software in whatever form you want, with a special exception: you can't do foo and bar if you change the license" The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they can be dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any time and I would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna keep the additional freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream version.
Bug#834322: RFS: phatch/0.2.7.1-3.2 [NMU] [RC]
On 16/08/16 12:15, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "phatch" >> Changes since the last upload: >> >> * Non-maintainer upload. >> * debian/patches: >> + Add fix-loading.patch to fix load with latest version of >> python-imaging > >> and python-pil. (Closes: #811184, LP: #1567827) > this looks good to me > > >> * Drop debian/phatch.menu> * debian/control: >> + Use secured links for VCS. >> + Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8. (no changes needed) >> * Drop debian/phatch.lintian: it is useless. > > > usually out of an NMU scope, but since the package is team maintained, I think > we can also get them in, with a cc of the maintainers in this email > (note: I sponsored in deferred/15, please Emilio or Piotr ack the changes!) > > thanks for the nice contribution to Debian, and for bringing the package back > into a good shape :) Ack, thanks! Feel free to directly upload this. Bonus points if you commit the changes to the repo. Thanks, Emilio
Bug#834322: RFS: phatch/0.2.7.1-3.2 [NMU] [RC]
On 25/08/16 12:04, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 16/08/16 12:15, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "phatch" >>> Changes since the last upload: >>> >>> * Non-maintainer upload. >>> * debian/patches: >>> + Add fix-loading.patch to fix load with latest version of >>> python-imaging >> >>> and python-pil. (Closes: #811184, LP: #1567827) >> this looks good to me >> >> >>> * Drop debian/phatch.menu> * debian/control: >>> + Use secured links for VCS. >>> + Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8. (no changes needed) >>> * Drop debian/phatch.lintian: it is useless. >> >> >> usually out of an NMU scope, but since the package is team maintained, I >> think >> we can also get them in, with a cc of the maintainers in this email >> (note: I sponsored in deferred/15, please Emilio or Piotr ack the changes!) >> >> thanks for the nice contribution to Debian, and for bringing the package back >> into a good shape :) > > Ack, thanks! Feel free to directly upload this. Bonus points if you commit the > changes to the repo. I should have read all the thread before replying :P Emilio
Bug#834570: marked as done (RFS: shark/3.1.1+ds1-1 [RC])
Your message dated Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:28:55 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: shark/3.1.1+ds1-1 [RC] has caused the Debian Bug report #834570, regarding RFS: shark/3.1.1+ds1-1 [RC] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 834570: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=834570 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: important Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "shark" * Package name: shark Version : 3.1.1+ds1-1 Upstream Author : Christian Igel * URL : http://image.diku.dk/shark/ * License : LGPL-3 Section : science It builds those binary packages: libshark-dev - development files for Shark libshark0 - Shark machine learning library shark-doc - documentation and examples for Shark To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/shark Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/shark/shark_3.1.1+ds1-1.dsc Successful build on debomatic: http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/shark/3.1.1+ds1-1/buildlog Changes since the last upload: * New upstream release. (Closes: #820701) * Bump standards version to 3.9.8, no changes required. * Build documentation with doxylink enabled. * Drop excessive patching of examples. * Only install API documentation to -doc package. * Clean artifacts from build of documentation. * Disable version query via svnversion. * Fix buggy HDF5 testcase in upstream testsuite. * Cherry-pick patch series fixing current FTBFS. (Closes: #831121) * Drop debug package in favor of autogenerated dbgsym. * Disable execution of slow test cases. * Miscalleneous changes to d/rules: - Add comment for DH_VERBOSE. - Remove query for DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH. - s/CMAKE_BUILD_OPTIONS/BUILD_OPTIONS. - Remove superfluous comments. Regards, Ghislain Vaillant --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Package shark version 3.1.1+ds1-1 is in unstable now. https://packages.qa.debian.org/shark--- End Message ---
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
On 25 August 2016 at 11:53, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> Am 2016-08-25 um 10:45 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
>>
>> I see many GPL-2 similar-looking licenses, with some special exceptions,
>> e.g.
>> "In addition to the above license, you can relicense this software in
>> whatever
>> form you want, with a special exception: you can't do foo and bar if you
>> change the
>> license"
>
>
> The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they can be
> dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any time and I
> would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna keep the additional
> freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream version.
They can be dropped (and, in fact, ignored completely) only if they
introduce additional restrictions conficting with the GPL itself. If
you're granting additional rights, you're free to grant them only
under a certain condition ("you're free to relicence this software
under a different license but you must keep this statement in tact").
--
Cheers,
Andrew
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Am 2016-08-25 um 12:39 schrieb Andrew Shadura:
On 25 August 2016 at 11:53, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
Am 2016-08-25 um 10:45 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
I see many GPL-2 similar-looking licenses, with some special exceptions,
e.g.
"In addition to the above license, you can relicense this software in
whatever
form you want, with a special exception: you can't do foo and bar if you
change the
license"
The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they can be
dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any time and I
would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna keep the additional
freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream version.
They can be dropped (and, in fact, ignored completely) only if they
introduce additional restrictions conficting with the GPL itself. If
you're granting additional rights, you're free to grant them only
under a certain condition ("you're free to relicence this software
under a different license but you must keep this statement in tact").
Yes, that is a good point and it certainly proves that GPL would work
in this regard; but what about the other two issues:
> I do also know that the KDE team had a problem with their license
> when Apple came to publish their respective amendments in the sources
> of Safari. They do not run and will never run on OSS and this makes
> Apple publishing their sources rather useless to the OSS community.
Now this is an additional restriction: you need to provide everything
that is necessary to run your software under an OSS based system (with
exceptions given for the kernel modules).
> Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my
> personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch
> their GPL-ed sources.
also not part of GPL.
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
(dropping people who reads mentors) > Yes, that is a good point and it certainly proves that GPL would work >in this regard; but what about the other two issues: I guess so > Now this is an additional restriction: you need to provide everything >that is necessary to run your software under an OSS based system (with >exceptions given for the kernel modules). I think this is a GPL-3 restriction, if you mean "Tivoization" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization (and this is a good reason to stay away from GPL-3) >> Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my >> personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch >> their GPL-ed sources. > >also not part of GPL. what? sorry I don't follow this sentence ;) G.
Re: Bug#835253: RFS: steghide/0.5.1-11 [QA]
Hi, Breno. On 08/24/2016 10:14 PM, Breno Leitao wrote: During my tests with your submission, I found that the package currently depends on libtool binary, but it does not build-depends on libtool-bin, which causes the build to fail (FTBFS). I opened a bug to track it under Bug#835378. Check it for more details. This is my fault. I removed it by mistake from the build-depends. I don't think a bug is needed in this case, because originally the package had a dependency on it. Also, I understand that your fix also closes the Bug#535842. What do you think? Indeed, it seems to be the same problem. Thank you, Breno Thanks for your response. I will work on it and re-upload it. -- Fernando Seiti Furusato IBM Linux Technology Center
Bug#835274: RFS: bcron/0.10-4
control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo >bcron > > * Use `dh-text' to avoid duplication in `debian/control' ERR. G.
Bug#801262: RFS: ppsspp/1.2.2+dfsg1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator
Hi, >04_tools.patch is updated. It's really hard to find a good replacement >for the fonts... fonts-droid was dropped and noto is not really the >replacement for it and fonts-droid-fallback from fonts-android? G.
Bug#827590: RFS: lua-torch-trepl/0~20160613-g06128f9-1 [ITP]
Hi, The dependencies are present in experimental, trepl is unblocked now. lua-torch-trepl is updated. Debomatic-amd64: passing http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#experimental/lua-torch-trepl/0~20160613-g06128f9-1/buildlog https://mentors.debian.net/package/lua-torch-trepl https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lua-torch-trepl/lua-torch-trepl_0~20160613-g06128f9-1.dsc Please sponsor, thanks :-) On 12 August 2016 at 14:24, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > >>This is due to, actually "trepl" doesn't B-D on the "lua-torch-torch7-dev" >>package. It is a runtime dependency. I'll leave a comment there. >>Keeping this runtime B-D there because it declares explicit dependency >>relationship. > > > oh, ok > >>I've thought about spliting it up -- inspece verbose dh build and >>extract the library compilation commands into d/rules -- however this >>makes d/rules complicated with hardcoded compiles. >> >>Seems that dh_lua didn't foresee such a demand, so the above method is >>the way first came up in my mind. > >> >>Now that the symlink just works fine ... >> >>1. split then up with hardcoded compile >>2. create a new package that ships just a simlink >> >>How do you like it? > > > no, seems worse. lets keep it > >>Suggests: lua-torch-dok, lua-torch-xlua > > > they need to be packaged first. > > G. > > > > -- > Best, > Lumin -- Best, Lumin
Bug#835274: RFS: bcron/0.10-4
> > * Use `dh-text' to avoid duplication in `debian/control' > > ERR. perror? I filed RFS for dh-text, and it received neutral-to-positive reviews. Please, not not upload yet. I plan to finally understand piuparts and check with it too. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
Bug#835274: RFS: bcron/0.10-4
control: block -1 by 834313 >perror? I filed RFS for dh-text, and it received neutral-to-positive >reviews. yes, but this bug needs the other one to be fixed, or the dh-text need reverted. >Please, not not upload yet. I plan to finally understand piuparts >and check with it too. this would be nice, setting up a debomatic local instance might be trivial and avoid a lot of troubles :) G.
Bug#827590: marked as done (RFS: lua-torch-trepl/0~20160613-g06128f9-1 [ITP])
Your message dated Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:54:09 + (UTC) with message-id <938143491.2200818.1472140449307.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#827590: RFS: lua-torch-trepl/0~20160613-g06128f9-1 [ITP] has caused the Debian Bug report #827590, regarding RFS: lua-torch-trepl/0~20160613-g06128f9-1 [ITP] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 827590: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827590 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lua-torch-trepl" * Package name: lua-torch-trepl Version : 0~20160613-g06128f9-1 Upstream Author : Torch Developers * URL : github.com/torch/trepl * License : BSD-3-Clause Section : interpreters It builds those binary packages: lua-torch-trepl - REPL Package for Troch Framework torch-trepl - REPL Package for Troch Framework To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/lua-torch-trepl Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lua-torch-trepl/lua-torch-trepl_0~20160613-g06128f9-1.dsc More information about hello can be obtained from https://www.example.com--- End Message ---
Bug#801262: marked as done (RFS: ppsspp/1.2.2+dfsg1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator)
Your message dated Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:06:20 + (UTC) with message-id <1599248372.281695.1472141180992.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> and subject line Re: Bug#801262: RFS: ppsspp/1.2.2+dfsg1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator has caused the Debian Bug report #801262, regarding RFS: ppsspp/1.2.2+dfsg1-1 [ITP] -- A portable PSP emulator to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 801262: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801262 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Hey dear mentors, Looking for a sponsor for the PPSSPP package: * Package name: ppsspp Version : 1.1.0 Upstream Author : Henrik Rydgård * URL :http://www.ppsspp.org/ * License : GPL-2+ Programming Lang: C, C++ Description : Sony PSP emulator PPSSPP is a PSP emulator written in C++, and translates PSP CPU instructions directly into optimized x86, x64 and ARM machine code, using an efficient JIT compiler. The package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/ppsspp -- Sergio Benjamim --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, >and fonts-droid-fallback from fonts-android? still, this seems something we can fix later. Uploaded this one. G.--- End Message ---
Bug#835253: RFS: steghide/0.5.1-11 [QA]
Hello.
I have just addressed the points raised.
dget
-xhttps://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/steghide/steghide_0.5.1-11.dsc
I also updated the changelog:
* QA upload.
* debian/control:
- added autotools-dev to build-depends.
- ${misc:Depends} to binary package dependency.
[ Aurelien Jarno ]
* debian/rules:
- added dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig and
dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig to fix FTBFS on new architectures
such as ppc64el. Closes: #759453, #535842
Thanks!
--
Fernando Seiti Furusato
IBM Linux Technology Center
Bug#835253: RFS: steghide/0.5.1-11 [QA]
Hi sorry for stepping in :) > - added autotools-dev to build-depends. > - added dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig and > dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig to fix FTBFS on new architectures > such as ppc64el. Closes: #759453, #535842 what about using autoreconf? it should fix the issue in a better(TM) way :) https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf BTW converting the rules file in the new dh calls seems to be trivial too ;) (I'm not requesting you to change anything, I might do also a subsequent upload when I bump debhelper compat level, and refactor the packaging to be more easily maintainable) thanks for caring you both :) G.
Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!
Hi Gianfranco, Hi Tobias,
Hi all Readers of this Debian Mentor Request,
Am 2016-08-25 um 13:12 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
Now this is an additional restriction: you need to provide everything
that is necessary to run your software under an OSS based system (with
exceptions given for the kernel modules).
I think this is a GPL-3 restriction, if you mean "Tivoization"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Sounds good to me. Then I am going to analyse GPL-3 and see if I can
adopt it for my programs.
(and this is a good reason to stay away from GPL-3)
... just the other way round
Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my
personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch
their GPL-ed sources.
also not part of GPL.
what?
sorry I don't follow this sentence ;)
some minor issues that would remain (like obtaining the sources without
undue obstacles) ..., however likely nothing that could stop me from
adopting GPL-3 for my programs.
>>> The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they
>>> can be dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any
>>> time and I would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna
>>> keep the additional freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream
>>> version.
>> They can be dropped (and, in fact, ignored completely) only if they
>> introduce additional restrictions conficting with the GPL itself. If
>> you're granting additional rights, you're free to grant them only
>> under a certain condition ("you're free to relicence this software
>> under a different license but you must keep this statement in tact").
> I guess so
Anyone else who could assert me that an additional GPL-3 clause would
do what I want: i.e. give an additional right to relicense to a group
called original authors only; let this be called GPL-3 + relicensing by
authors. The GPL-3 amendment would more or less be the same as #7 of
C-FSL and a statement to tag the GPL-3 abbreviation with the relicensing
by authors flag.
Is it really true that this can not be interpreted as restriction
just because any contributor would have to consent in giving the
original authors this additional right. It means that someone who does
not consent is not allowed to apply changes because then the whole
license would need to turn invalid.
Finally I would like to ask anyone who knows about another issue with
C-FSL to share it with me as the programs in question will likely be
available under C-FSL + GPL-3 + relicensing by authors for some ongoing
time.
up to now I have noted the following issues for C-FSL:
* explicitly allow unchanged redistribution
* version number to use as default: v1.1
* mention online URL in the license
see: https://www.elstel.org/license/C-FSL-v1.0.txt
Regards,
Elmar
Bug#835253: RFS: steghide/0.5.1-11 [QA]
Hello Gianfranco. Thanks for your input on this! On 08/25/2016 02:56 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: what about using autoreconf? it should fix the issue in a better(TM) way :) https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf Yes, I initially tried to add the usage of dh-autoreconf, but I rolled back because it didn't build and clean smoothly. Anyway I will work on it then. BTW converting the rules file in the new dh calls seems to be trivial too ;) Ok, let me give it a try. Regards. -- Fernando Seiti Furusato IBM Linux Technology Center
Bug#835469: RFS: mairix/0.23+git20131125-3 -- indexes and searches locally-stored email
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for a new release of mairix. I haven't been able to convert the copyright to DEP-5 yet because I'm waiting on information from the package maintainer from 2002--2004. * Package name: mairix Version : 0.23+git20131125-3 Upstream Author : Richard P. Curnow * URL : https://github.com/rc0/mairix * License : GPL-2+ Section : mail Changes since the last upload: * Enable all hardening. * Tweak & reformat description. * Add fix-manpage-syntax.patch. * Install example config to examples/ subdir. Previously installed to /usr/share/doc/mairix * Install NEWS as the upstream changelog, not just as "NEWS". * Add Vcs-* URIs. * Add gbp.conf. Download with dget: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mairix/mairix_0.23+git20131125-3.dsc Or build it with gbp: git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/mairix.git cd mairix origtargz# obtain from archive git checkout debian/0.23+git20131125-3 git verify-tag debian/0.23+git20131125-3 # if you have my key gbp buildpackage Thanks. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
