On Mon Mar 29 00:39, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:18:37 +0100
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > This one has the old orig tarball with the html files still there
>
> remove old tarball, rebuild and checked.
> Sorry, but once again please...
>
> http:
On Mon Mar 29 00:05, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:51:54 +0100
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Thanks, but that file seems to still have the debian/copyright issues in it?
>
> Oh, bogus lines. removed.
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/plei
; upstream says, so I removed that
> from upstream source and re-uploaded it.
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pleiades/pleiades_1.3.1-dfsg-1.dsc
Thanks, but that file seems to still have the debian/copyright issues in it?
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ble.
We recommend licencing packaging under either the licence of the software,
or
a permissive licence such as expat.
- what is the licence of
./srctest/jp/sourceforge/mergedoc/pleiades/resource/3.1.1a/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv_3.1.1/jdt_api_options/ja_expected.html
(et al)?
Ma
der Apache 1.1, so this does not
help.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
quot;
>
> If this is not clear, what's the correct thing to do? Contact
> upstream? debian-legal?
Ah, thank you, yes, this is perfectly correct, you should paste that into
debian/copyright so everyone knows what is going on (particularly the FTP
masters when they do the same review in the NEW queue)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue Jan 26 22:06, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cobertura
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian
On Wed Aug 12 11:44, Adrian Perez wrote:
> Sure it did. Uploaded to mentors, and commited at:
> svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-java/trunk/azureus.
Uploaded
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-stable backports, I don't see any
reason why it shouldn't be the standard compat version.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
* OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
* OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
*
*/
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Damien,
I've reviewed the package and it looks clean, but I have one question.
Which bit is licenced under the apache-derived licence? I can only find
BSD-licenced files.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
fixable (trivially except for the manpage). I would
upload with them, but the error really needs to be fixed.
Other than that it all looks good.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I'm uploading rhino and tomcat-native now
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri Mar 20 13:47, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
>
> Could you upload my package as is ?
Done
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
d my package as is ?
Yes, I'll do it this evening when I've booted my pbuilder machine.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
when you had openjdk to stop it taking such a long time).
Hence, the library can still be used with default-jre, it just might be
slow.
I don't mind too much though. An alternative could be to compile with
-target 1.5 to ensure you use a classfile version compatible with gcj.
Matt
--
On Sun Mar 15 23:58, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> On Sunday 15 March 2009 21:09:33 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Hi Damien, I'm looking at it now, I've got a couple of points,
Hi, sorry for the delay.
> Sounds reasonable: I've downgraded openjdk-6-jre-headless to a S
un on every build?
It looks pretty good in general though, I'm happy to upload if you at
least fix the depends.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ll the needed java machinery so you
>don't have to depend on a java runtime environment; is that correct?
Java library packages don't depend on JREs, Java applications that use
them.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
verything else is fine, I'll upload it once you move the Closes: up to
the most recent entry
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of them as alternatives (those that are
packaged).
- debian/copyright claims BSD licence, but the LICENSE in the tarball
says GPLv2, which is it?
Both packages build and are lintian/pbuilder clean though, which is
good.
Matt
0. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi, sorry I've been silent for a while, I've been a bit busy.
Everything looks good now, and I'd be happy to upload, _but_:
you now have:
Suggests: nanoxml2-java-doc
whereas you actually want:
Suggests: libnanoxml2-java-doc
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Descr
On Mon Jul 21 00:57, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote:
> I've just uploaded a new version to mentors.debian.net, you should dget that.
>
Looks good, I've uploaded
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ould be
> generated), or? (I am sorry. I had forgotten about them)
You could strip them out with the jar. Since you are repacking the
tarball anyway, that's worth doing.
If you are installing them (which seems a good idea?) then you certainly
need to build them from source, but the late
doc.
Other than that looks good.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
n/changelog targets "UNRELEASED" at the moment. If you would
like me to upload it, please change this to "unstable".
Secondly, you have:
Package: libcommons-vfs-java
Section: devel
Please change this to Section: libs.
Other than that, it is in good shape and I will be hap
rst from scratch Debian package. Anything I could improve?
>
> I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me if it is good enough.
>
If you can check the md5sum package above I'll happily look it over and
sponsor.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
While waiting to be assigned an AM I am still looking for sponsors to
upload a variety of packages for me. Signed source and binary packages
for them all can be found at
http://mjj29.matthew.ath.cx/debian-upload/$package/ and details of each
package are below:
dbus-java
- new upstream release t
Is this enough confermation?
Matt
- Forwarded message from Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTPW
From: Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It says GPL on
http://freshmeat.net/projects/otpw/
so must be true ..
uire licence information to be added to every
file? As an upstream I would consider that unreasonable when I have
clearly given the licence elsewhere. If not, what would be sufficient?
Must all upstreams be asked whether their stated copyright on the work
is correct file-by-file?
Also, thanks for the manpages tip.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le mercredi 14 mars 2007 16:27, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
> > Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package otpw.
>
> Few remarks concerning your package:
Thanks (-:
> * libotpw-dev: Is it mandatory
for me.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ponsor. Of course, I am happy for people to volunteer
to sponsor these in as well.
Thanks,
Matt
- --
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFF5CJUpldmHVvob7kRAgaaAJ9NpVevhgpvwZFzLT+gE1vbFP
33 matches
Mail list logo
