On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
as all of you should know, packages in non-free are not build by the normal
autobuilders for legal reasons. However, if a non-free package exist on
different architectures, it need to be current to allow testing migration.
On the other hand, there
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-29 16:28]:
> On the other hand, there are plenty of packages in non-free that can easily
> be autobuild, because their license is "free-with-tiny-exceptions".
How can I decide that my package fall into this category? Are there
guidelines available som
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
On the other hand, there are plenty of packages in non-free that can easily
be autobuild, because their license is "free-with-tiny-exceptions". For such
packages, a group of Developers headed by Martin (zobel) and me provides some
autobuilding infrastruc
On Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 16:40:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:28:24PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If you are maintainer of a non-free-package falling into this category (i.e.
> > after careful review of the license that it can be autobuild), please:
>
> Are you
* Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061129 16:41]:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:28:24PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If you are maintainer of a non-free-package falling into this category (i.e.
> > after careful review of the license that it can be autobuild), please:
>
> Are you interest
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:28:24PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If you are maintainer of a non-free-package falling into this category (i.e.
> after careful review of the license that it can be autobuild), please:
Are you interested in having those information also for Arch: all
packages?
Just t
6 matches
Mail list logo
