Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)

Il giorno Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:18:44 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > Hello, Hi, > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package > > "libx86", which I want to adopt. > > Thanks for this work. This

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:55PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > Am I missing something? This ? http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license http://web.archive.org/web/20001205083200/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable > license. > > DFSG http://www.debian.org/social_contract> §10: > > 10. Example Licenses > > The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that > we consider fre

Re: RFS: Some packages

On Feb 4, 2008 7:45 PM, Kartik Mistry wrote: > My regular sponsors are busy at moment, so if anyone can help to > upload following package (or can comment on them for better quality) I > will be very thankful. Hi all, I am still looking for sponsor(s) for following packages! The long list has bec

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered > by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of > least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable > licenses in the DFSG. The 4-clause BSD license

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with > advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, > who are the most likely persons to infringe the clause. We should > remeber that for other aspects of licencing a

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:44:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such > > licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory > > read all the copyright files t

Re: RFS: failmalloc

Hi On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:04:08 +0900 Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "failmalloc". > > * Package name: failmalloc > Version : 1.0-1 > Upstream Author : Yoshinori K. Okuji > * URL : http://

Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)

Hello, On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package > "libx86", which I want to adopt. Thanks for this work. This package is quite important for people with laptops! Some remarks: 1. The Ubuntu package seems to have

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This example is maybe a bit artificial, but the point is that with such > licences in main, redistributors who use advertisement should in theory > read all the copyright files to check who to acknowledge. For this > reason, I wouldn't recommend to incl

Re: RFS: QA Upload - imlib - Two bug fixes, including RC bug

Hello, On Mon, 04 Feb 2008, Barry deFreese wrote: > I've uploaded a version of imlib that fixes an important and RC bug. If > someone has time to review/sponsor. Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2008-02-05, Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I've uploaded a version of imlib that fixes a

Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

Le Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:30:01PM +0100, Jean Parpaillon a écrit : > > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > software must display the following acknowledgement: > This produ

Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > Zerofree finds the unallocated, non-zeroed blocks in an ext2 or ext3 > file-system and fills them with zeroes. This is useful if the device on How does zerofree avoid race conditions of something trying to use a block it wil zero in the time window (

RFS: acon (updated package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.5-5 of my package "acon". It builds these binary packages: acon - Text console arabization The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 464271 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - U

RFS: smplayer-themes

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "smplayer-themes". * Package name    : smplayer-themes * Version         : 0.1.15-1 * Upstream Author : Ricardo Villalba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL             : http://smplayer.sourceforge.net * License         : aggregation of independent w

Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems

Le 6 févr. 08 à 19:47, Bas Wijnen a écrit : Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This package is unrelated to the work I usually do with my sponsor Christoph Haas, which is why I prefer to ask here rather than to him. In that case, I think it is not appropriate to set the field

RFS: libx86 (adopted package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package "libx86", which I want to adopt. It builds these binary packages: libx86-1 - x86 real-mode library libx86-dbg - x86 real-mode library - debugging symbols libx86-dev - x86 real-mode library - development files

Re: RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems

Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zerofree". I have several other packages waiting for me at the moment, so I'm afraid I can't do that (at least not soon). > Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This pac

Re: Copyright question

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:31PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon: > > Hi, > > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the > > following statements: > > -- > > 1. Redistributions of source

Re: Copyright question

On 06/02/2008, Sebastian Harl wrote: > Just to make this clear […] Yep, thank you (all) for clarifying that, sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpyGch4L5nAE.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Copyright question

Hi, Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon: > Hi, > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the > following statements: > -- > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and t

Re: Copyright question

Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 04:46:23PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: > > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > > software must display the following acknowledgement: > > This product includes software developed at t

RFC/RFS: zerofree - zero free blocks from ext2/3 file-systems

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zerofree". Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This package is unrelated to the work I usually do with my sponsor Christoph Haas, which is why I prefer to ask here rather than to him. * Package name: zerofree Vers

Re: Copyright question

Hi Jean! You wrote: > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the > following statements: > -- > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >

Re: Copyright question

This one time, at band camp, Cyril Brulebois said: > On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: > > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > > software must display the following acknowledgement: > > This product includes software developed at the University of

Re: Copyright question

On 06/02/2008, Jean Parpaillon wrote: > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > software must display the following acknowledgement: > This product includes software developed at the University of > Tennessee, Knoxville, Innovative Computing Laboratories.

Copyright question

Hi, I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the following statements: -- 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Re: RFR: meritous

On 06/02/2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > OK. Specifying a fixed subject. And uploaded. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpH9PcddM6mO.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: thailatex (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 9:23 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not so sure if this is OK, what do the texlive Debian people say? > > The change in the postinst looks fairly simple, perhaps it could be > integrated into texlive? Again, I think that would cause kind of dangling pointer, and wou

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 9:20 PM, Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the record, some reasons for asking upstream not to include a > debian/ directory in the released tarballs: > > > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/on_debian_directories_in_upstream_tarballs/ It's not included. For swat

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 9:10 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uploaded, please contact this list for future uploads. Thank you. > For next time: > > Well, I just checked the Vcs-* links, they seem to point to upstream > rather than the Debian packaging. They also have a debian dir in them > tha

Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 8:28 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uploaded. Thanks a lot. > BTW, something I missed until now, are you sure the libthai0 -> > libthai-data is OK to leave unversioned? Yes. The dictionary is independent part from the algorithm. It will have versioned dependency if th

Re: RFS: thailatex (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 4:15 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I got another idea to solve this: just drop babel.sty from > > thailatex, and copy it from texlive-latex-base with edition > > on postinst. Also remove it on prerm. > > Done, and updated with version unchanged: > h

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On 06/02/2008, Paul Wise wrote: > Well, I just checked the Vcs-* links, they seem to point to upstream > rather than the Debian packaging. They also have a debian dir in > them that doesn't seem to be updated. For the record, some reasons for asking upstream not to include a debian/ directory in t

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 8:41 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Done and uploaded: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swath/swath_0.3.2-1.dsc Uploaded, please contact this list for future uploads. > Other changes left? For next time: Well, I just checked the Vcs-

Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 8:30 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one example of such a pair of descriptions. > > Thanks. I hope my similar modification is fine. Yep, it is. > > So, I'll upload once you remove the licence blurb I wrongly asked you t

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 6:27 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > blurbs-missing-in-licence > > > > Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. > > Please revert that, sorry for the noise. Done and uploaded: http:/

Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)

On Feb 6, 2008 6:07 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I find this guideline for library description good, although > > I don't see an example of such package yet. > > warzone2100/warzone2100-data is one examp

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > blurbs-missing-in-licence > > Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. Please revert that, sorry for the noise. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: RFS: swath 0.3.2-1 (updated package)

On Feb 5, 2008 9:44 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > blurbs-missing-in-licence > > Done, although thinking equally not-a-bug. Please revert that, sorry for the noise. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)

On Feb 5, 2008 7:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's to be changed, I'd rather bump the versions in the > symbols file to 0.1.7 and ignore etch completely. Would > there be any drawback in doing so? Sounds fine given the private symbols stuff. > For the standard

CFLAGS

Hi, I'm wondering how to use CFLAGS properly debian/rules. I guess it really is a newbie question... I read http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html . dh- make currently does show how to set CFLAGS, but not how to pass it on. In one of my packages, I do that (basically):

Re: RFS: (3 packages)

Hi, Sorry for the delay. I'll have a look at these, hopefully today. If anyone is faster, don't wait for me, though. ;-) On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:04:39PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.4.1-1 > of my package "qterm". On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08

Re: RFS: libthai 0.1.9-2 (updated package)

Hi, I've updated the package according to my previous answers, with additional decisions for some points: On Feb 5, 2008 5:21 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your shlibs says >= 0.1.7 but the max version in your symbols file is 0.1.6. > > The shlibdeps was bumped to