tags 416651 + pending
thanks
New version of bandwidthd available at:
http://fatal.se/pub/debian/bandwidthd/bandwidthd-2.0.1+cvs20050208-11/
(debdiff + piuparts log available in the same location)
- lintian and linda clean
- passes all piuparts tests.
- adds LSB section to init script (which was r
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:06:26AM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> - -=| Paul TBBle Hampson, 29.03.2007 19:37 |=-
>> And
>> although I haven't done it in a while, I don't recall dpatch-edit-patch
>> being particularly fun to use on a non-applying pat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -=| Paul TBBle Hampson, 30.03.2007 17:58 |=-
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:06:26AM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>
>> - -=| Paul TBBle Hampson, 29.03.2007 19:37 |=-
>>> And
>>> although I haven't done
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libphp-facebook".
* Package name: libphp-facebook
Version : 0.0.20070306-1
Upstream Author : Facebook, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://developers.facebook.com/documentation.php?doc=clients
* License
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:56:43PM +0100, Jonny Lamb wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libphp-facebook".
>
> * Package name: libphp-facebook
> Version : 0.0.20070306-1
> Upstream Author : Facebook, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL :
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:59 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> FreeBSD is not a license.
I used "FreeBSD" from the GNU license list[0] and a page on the FreeBSD
site[1], but I suppose that only applies to the FreeBSD software, no?
Is "BSD" the correct license name to use in this case then?
Regar
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:59 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> FreeBSD is not a license.
On looking into this further. This does indeed look like the FreeBSD
license. The BSD license has three points where the third is:
"3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
products der
On 3/31/07, Jonny Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The license in my package looks more like the FreeBSD than the original,
or modified, BSD license. Or is this more suited to -legal?!
It's the 2-clause BSD license, the 'FreeBSD' license is just the
2-clause BSD with FreeBSD names put in.
--
An
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 08:31 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> It's the 2-clause BSD license, the 'FreeBSD' license is just the
> 2-clause BSD with FreeBSD names put in.
Ah okay. That seems to have cleared things up! Thank you! Need I update
this anywhere then? I believe I only said "FreeBSD" licens
On 3/31/07, Jonny Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah okay. That seems to have cleared things up! Thank you! Need I update
this anywhere then? I believe I only said "FreeBSD" license on my ITP
and RFS.
I don't think so - as long as you clearly document it in
debian/copyright it's OK.
--
Andrew
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
>Please sponsor! :)
Done! :)
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Dear all,
I wanted to encode some of the manpages I wrote in Unicode,
but although xsltproc converts them fine, nroff is not able to pipe
something correct to less, and french accents or chinese characters
are not correctly displayed. Is there something to do, or is nroff
simply not unicod
Hi Charles,
From: Charles Plessy
Subject: Encoding a manpage in unicode ?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:35:24 +0900
> I wanted to encode some of the manpages I wrote in Unicode,
> but although xsltproc converts them fine, nroff is not able to pipe
> something correct to less, and french accents
13 matches
Mail list logo
