Harald Dunkel writes:
> But don't you think it would be a pity to loose the 80 existing game
> levels?
Until they are re-licensed under free terms, they are already lost to
the free software world anyway.
--
\“Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be |
`\
Harald Dunkel writes:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > Get upstream to replace the non-free bits with free bits.
>
> Upstream doesn't support this package anymore.
Then the question, raised earlier in this thread, needs to be
considered: Why should this un-maintained work be packaged for Debian?
Is
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 01:13:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Uploaded. I hope you both don't mind, but I took the liberty of
> switching the urgency to medium instead of low due to the RC bug.
Thanks, that's fine. I nearly made it medium, but I couldn't find any
written guidance on appropriate urg
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "autokey".
* Package name: autokey
Version : 0.54.4
Upstream Author : Chris Dekter
* URL : http://autokey.sf.net
* License : GPL-2+
Programming Lang: Python
Description : text expansion and hotkey
Reijo Tomperi wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cppcheck".
* Package name: cppcheck
Version : 1.25-1
Upstream Authors: Daniel Marjamäki
Reijo Tomperi
* URL : http://cppcheck.wiki.sourceforge.net/
* License : GP
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:04:39 +0200
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > In that case, the new upstream for the game (you) can write some new
> > levels that are free. It seems pointless to consign the game to
> > non-free when for the sake of a few game levels, it could be in main.
> > The "game" is not non-
Harald Dunkel schrieb:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>> A dead upstream effectively requires that the Debian maintainer (you)
>> become the upstream - are you ready to take on that task?
>>
>
> Lets say I am not completely unprepared, at least from the software
> engineering side ;-). But I am not sure a
Neil Williams wrote:
>
> A dead upstream effectively requires that the Debian maintainer (you)
> become the upstream - are you ready to take on that task?
>
Lets say I am not completely unprepared, at least from the software
engineering side ;-). But I am not sure about the options I have to
rel
Kartik Mistry wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Kamaraju S
> Kusumanchi wrote:
>> dpkg-source: error: cannot represent change to
>> texmacs-1.0.7.2/debian/.rules.swp: binary file contents changed
>
> This is why...
>
> Close debian/rules opened in another tab/window and remove .rules.swp
On Sunday 12,July,2009 09:14 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> it seems that you are looking for ‘pristine-tar’. Using a repository where all
> the sources are checked out as well as the pristine-tar delta, you can
> regenerate a binary-identical tarball. Actually, this is implemented for git
> repositor
Le Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:38:51AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a écrit :
> In <20090704120642.gh6...@kunpuu.plessy.org>, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >we have a patch in the Debian package mummer for which we lost origin and
> >detailed description. I would like to forward it upstream, but I would
> >
Le Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 08:41:31PM +0800, Jason Heeris a écrit :
>
> I can manually create a tarballs directory in the repo, but then
> collaborators would have to manually check them out, and I'd have to
> have every single release in there for all revisions (otherwise, how
> will svn-buildpackag
Paul Wise wrote:
>
> All too common unfortunately. In that case, I suggest a fork (since
> you can't hijack it). At least FreeBSD also includes blockade too BTW.
>
I found this version, too, even though I did not know that it is shipped
with FreeBSD. It is surely a different version. Especially
Hi,
I need a bit of advice on using svn-buildpackage, using the upstream
merge mode. Basically I would like to keep the upstream tarballs in
the repository, untouched so that hashes and signatures match. Is
there a way to do this so that svn-buildpackage knows how to find
them? Otherwise, other pe
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:01:29 +0200
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > Get upstream to replace the non-free bits with free bits.
>
> Upstream doesn't support this package anymore.
A dead upstream effectively requires that the Debian maintainer (you)
become the upstream - are you re
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Harald Dunkel
wrote:
> Upstream doesn't support this package anymore.
All too common unfortunately. In that case, I suggest a fork (since
you can't hijack it). At least FreeBSD also includes blockade too BTW.
> The non-free part is not a wallpaper or some backgr
Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Get upstream to replace the non-free bits with free bits.
Upstream doesn't support this package anymore.
> Some free
> game resources are listed here:
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Games/Resources
>
The non-free part is not a wallpaper or some background
music, but
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "openx".
* Package name: openx
Version : 2.8.1-1
Upstream Author : copyri...@openx.org
* URL : http://www.openx.org
* License : GPL-2
Section : web
It builds these binary packages:
openx -
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> I think the real problem is mixing free and non-free sources in the same
> *.orig.tar.gz.
>
> What would be your recommendation to handle this?
Get upstream to replace the non-free bits with free bits. Some free
game resources are listed her
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Kamaraju S
Kusumanchi wrote:
> dpkg-source: error: cannot represent change to
> texmacs-1.0.7.2/debian/.rules.swp: binary file contents changed
This is why...
Close debian/rules opened in another tab/window and remove .rules.swp
while building package..
--
Chee
When I download the texmacs source code from unstable
apt-get source texmacs
cd texmacs-1.0.7.2
and run
$dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
The compilation process works fine.
However if I make some trivial changes (say in debian/rules) and recompile
it using
dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
then the comp
21 matches
Mail list logo
