Hello
> I will upload the new package tonight.
Done
can you check the new lisaac package
Thanks.
Fred
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello
I made the changes you ask for.
> * Short description field format is (Policy: 5.6.13):
> Description:
ok
>
>and you wrote:
> Description:object-oriented language base on prototype
>
>Please, be careful with this space.
>
> * Doesn't lisaac build with other versi
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:55:10 +0200
PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hello,
> I made all the changes you asked for my lisaac package:
Just a few easy-to-fix questions/comments/notes:
* Short description field format is (Policy: 5.6.13):
Description:
and you wrote:
On (17/09/06 21:27), PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lisaac".
>
> * Package name: lisaac
Hi, a few more comments for you,
* What is #CONFIGURE-STAMP# in debian/rules?
* You have a file debian/patch-stamp in the source package
On (13/09/06 21:59), PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> * I'm a little wary of the copyright situation, as I can't see any
> statements within the package. It appears the license is DFSG free,
> but you need to include any and all copyright statements in your
> debian/copyright. If t
.
>I realise you did that, however I am not talking about the license, I am
>referring to Copyright statements, e.g.
> Copyright 2006 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>They are a separate issue from licenses, as they state who has the
>Copyright for the work. Licenses deal with what you as a
>u
[Moving back on list, as I would like to keep it there, and I don't
think the information is private]
On (13/09/06 21:59), PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> * I'm a little wary of the copyright situation, as I can't see any
> statements within the package. It appears the license is DFSG free,
On (13/09/06 14:27), PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lisaac".
>
> * Package name: lisaac
I'm afraid I can't sponsor the package, but I have some comments for
you.
* The descriptions for the -common and -doc packages should at l
Hello
I made all the changes you asked for my lisaac package:
* Now it is lintian clean. I added some overrides for the GPL du to the
reference in the CeCillv2 licence.
*I removed all un commented dh_* in the rules file.
*My email is the same everywhere.
*I am using dpatch for path.li
The uploa
> True. Have a look at how to deal with lintian's overrides:
> file:/usr/share/doc/lintian/lintian.html/ch2.html#s2.4
> (tip: you want to override 3 binary type packages)
I will check this thanks.
> As long as you are reachible via these addresses it is not a big deal. Of
> course it would be ni
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello
Hello,
> > * lintian errors:
> > E: lisaac-doc: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
> > E: lisaac-common: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
> > E: lisaac: copyright-should-refer-to-common-l
Hello
> * lintian errors:
> E: lisaac-doc: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
> E: lisaac-common: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
> E: lisaac: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
For thoses errors. In fact the text of the Cecillv2 licence
Le Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:24:47AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> do you have a documentation explaining how to set up a patch-system like
> dpatch
Dear Frédéric,
I wrote the following paragraphs in a never released web page:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:32:21 +0200
"Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Frédéric,
> I'm not a DD (so I can't upload, and for sure I'll miss some notes),
> but I gave a look at your package and found some issues:
>
> * lintian errors:
> E: lisaac-doc: copyright-should-refer-to-common-licen
Hi Frédéric,
I'm not a DD (so I can't upload, and for sure I'll miss some notes),
but I gave a look at your package and found some issues:
* lintian errors:
E: lisaac-doc: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
E: lisaac-common: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:11:42 +0300
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 12:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > RFS: lisaac
> >
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lisaac", Or at least an opinion
> > about the packaging. Thank you.
>
>
On Friday 18 August 2006 12:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RFS: lisaac
>
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lisaac", Or at least an opinion
> about the packaging. Thank you.
CeCILL FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE looks free to me, but you must include its full
text in debian/cop
17 matches
Mail list logo
