2008/1/20, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe that you should either license your packaging work under the
> same license as the upstream source or add an exception to the licensing
> on your packaging work to allow it to be linked with OpenSSL.
I think simple patches are not eligible f
"Krzysztof Burghardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/1/19, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 09:38:39AM +0100, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
>> >The package appears to be lintian clean.
>>
>> lintian -i --show-overrides poco_1.2.9-3_i386.changes
>> W: libpoco2
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 09:38:39AM +0100, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
>The package appears to be lintian clean.
lintian -i --show-overrides poco_1.2.9-3_i386.changes
W: libpoco2: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
N:
N: This package appears to be covered by the GNU GPL but depends on the
N:
2008/1/19, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 09:38:39AM +0100, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote:
> >The package appears to be lintian clean.
>
> lintian -i --show-overrides poco_1.2.9-3_i386.changes
> W: libpoco2: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
> N:
> N: This
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.2.9-3
of my package "poco".
It builds these binary packages:
libpoco-dev - Development files for POCO - The C++ Portable Components
libpoco2 - POCO - The C++ Portable Components
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload
5 matches
Mail list logo