Re: Unlicensed files

2014-05-26 Thread Tobias Frost
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 08:08 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > Hi, > > I'm making a package and I have two files (scripts) that have no license. I > have asked to upstream and his answer was that that files are unlicensed. > > As I have a bug because partially mentions that files, what sh

Unlicensed files

2014-05-26 Thread Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
Hi, I'm making a package and I have two files (scripts) that have no license. I have asked to upstream and his answer was that that files are unlicensed. As I have a bug because partially mentions that files, what should I write in the copyright file? I have surfing but I have not found any in

Bug#749452: RFS: gnustep-gui/0.24.0-1

2014-05-26 Thread Yavor Doganov
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Control: block -1 with 749142 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gnustep-gui". There are a lot of lintian errors about GFDL invariant sections due to what I believe is a bug in lintian (nothing changed upstream). It builds the

Bug#749142: closed by Bart Martens (closing RFS: gnustep-base/1.24.6-1 [RC] [security])

2014-05-26 Thread Yavor Doganov
reopen 749142 thanks On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:27:13PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > From: Bart Martens > Package gnustep-base has been removed from mentors. I discovered a few issues, fixed them and reuploaded the package. > dget -x > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main

Bug#748831: RFS: crashme/2.7-1 [ITA]

2014-05-26 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote: > On 26.05.14 18:25:25, Jakub Wilk wrote: >> If my supposition is correct, then this is a grave bug, and after it's fixed >> in unstable, it should be also fixed in stable and oldstable. > > I can fix this when I am given DM rights to cra

Bug#748831: RFS: crashme/2.7-1 [ITA]

2014-05-26 Thread Dariusz Dwornikowski
On 26.05.14 18:25:25, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Dariusz Dwornikowski , 2014-05-26, > 17:19: > >>What happened to debian/patch/legacy.patch? > >As upstream informed me legacy.patch is in 2.7 already, which I try to > >push into Debian, that is why I have deleted it. > > Then this should be documented

Bug#749142: marked as done (RFS: gnustep-base/1.24.6-1 [RC] [security])

2014-05-26 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Mon, 26 May 2014 16:24:09 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: gnustep-base/1.24.6-1 [RC] [security] has caused the Debian Bug report #749142, regarding RFS: gnustep-base/1.24.6-1 [RC] [security] to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem ha

Bug#748831: RFS: crashme/2.7-1 [ITA]

2014-05-26 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Dariusz Dwornikowski , 2014-05-26, 17:19: What happened to debian/patch/legacy.patch? As upstream informed me legacy.patch is in 2.7 already, which I try to push into Debian, that is why I have deleted it. Then this should be documented in the changelog. But at least this part - {stat

Bug#748831: RFS: crashme/2.7-1 [ITA]

2014-05-26 Thread Dariusz Dwornikowski
On 24.05.14 23:38:38, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Dariusz Dwornikowski , 2014-05-21, > 13:48: > >>If you listed files to remove in debian/clean, you could avoid the > >>override in debian/rules. > >Yes, fixed that too. Settled for d/rules. > > Well, now I can't build the source package: > > rm -f *.o