On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
> is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
> EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
> reinclude thes f
Hi Bastien,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33:18AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> >
> > Usually releases are on July 15th. I think that we can wait for the next
> > upload, at that time or earlier, to re-introduce the manual.
>
> Could you retest with Lintian gît. I have fixed it a week ago.
I c
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: FDL with no invariant sections"):
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:35:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [Andreas:]
> > > ... reintroducing a small piece of documentation which
> > > is heavily outdated (covering version 2.5 - we are now
Hi Ian,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:35:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > While this could be considered in general it is probably not worth the
> > effort to stress test mirrors and autobuilders with these huge packages
> > just for the sake of reintroducing a small piece of documentation which
>
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
> Do you consider the lack of the DFSG-free manual an RC bug ?
Given that the manual describes a version from the stone ages,
comparatively speaking, I wouldn't consider this to be an RC bug.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debia
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: FDL with no invariant sections"):
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I would reupload it as emboss_6.6.0+dfsg2-1.dsc (dfsg2), using the right
>
Hi Santiago,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:07:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> I would reupload it as emboss_6.6.0+dfsg2-1.dsc (dfsg2), using the right
> tar.gz (the one in 6.6.0-1). You don't need an epoch for that.
While this co
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
> is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
> EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
> reinclude thes f
Le 20 mai 2014 10:27, "Charles Plessy" a écrit :
>
> Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> >
> > Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
> > is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
> > EMBOSS release is o
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:19:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> Considering that it is really a false positive - do you think that there
> is much harm done with my stripped upload? As far as I remember a new
> EMBOSS release is on its way in the next couple of weeks and we can
> reinclude
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:09:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> >
> > I realised that lintian is claiming:
> >
> > $ dget http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emboss/emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
> > $ lintian emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
> >
Le Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I realised that lintian is claiming:
>
> $ dget http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/emboss/emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
> $ lintian emboss_6.6.0-1.dsc
> E: emboss source: license-problem-gfdl-invariants doc/manuals/admin.tex
> in
://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License_.28GFDL.29
to give some reasonable advise to them I'm reading
Data licensed under the FDL with no invariant sections are considered
DFSG-free as of GR 2006-001:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#outcome
So before I confuse upstream
13 matches
Mail list logo
