Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These seem to have all been analyzed already. I guess there's no need for
> me to say which ones are RC or not, the proposed guidelines should be clear
> enough?
No, sorry for not being clear: I just wanted to make sure that
everyone, especially the a
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:35:11AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Have I overlooked any other outstanding issues in these bugs, or missed
> > important details about any of the files?
> Not in the bugs, but since this all got very confusing, I stopped
> forwarding to the bug all problems I found.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:14PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the
> > same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license ".
> > It's the latter that introduce
Hi Steve!
On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the
> same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license ".
> It's the latter that introduces ambiguity.
To cite from TeX live's "COPYING CONDITIONS":
---
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed
> > as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement,
> > resulting in ambiguity about
Hi Frank, hi all!
On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> ,
> | euler: LPPL according changelog, but no indication in file.
euler v4 fixed this with a manifest afair.
> | citesort.sty: no license statement
This is Donald Arsenau. It was removed on CTAN and TeX live and I asked
him to rei
Hi all!
On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed
> as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement,
> resulting in ambiguity about which license the component is distributed
> under, the bug is
Hi all!
On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> and do not allow texlive as an alternative. Among the packages any
> texlive package conflicts with, there might be some more. Some other
> conflicts just indicate that the package is not up-to-date, and texlive
> installs the newer version cont
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The guidelines I believe we should be using when deciding such a bug is RC
> as follows:
Thank you for your answer.
> Have I overlooked any other outstanding issues in these bugs, or missed
> important details about any of the files?
Not in the bugs,
Hi Frank,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> With the freeze coming nearer, I am unsure how to deal with this. I
> currently see two options:
> a) Either remove all problematic files from the orig.tar.gz right now,
>with the option to add them again later
> b) O
Hi,
I should always go riding my bike *before* writing long e-mails. I
always get the best ideas when moving my legs.
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Either remove all problematic files from the orig.tar.gz right now,
>with the option to add them again later
[...]
> The good th
Dear release team, dear fellow TeX maintainers,
[Executive Summary: Being in the process of contacting upstream
authors, should we rather fix the bugs early and maybe overreact, or
wait?]
as you probably know, the teTeX[1] packages have a couple of RC bugs[2]
because documentation or runtime fi
12 matches
Mail list logo
