On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 04:40:49PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I don't see what would require you to package every piece of
> functionality included in a upstream tarball. Certainly you should
> include sufficient comments in the spec to make the situation obvious.
> Just be mindful that
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:33:18AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Whoever wants to package this will also need to check the tarball for
> patent-encumbered stuff, e.g. there are tools working on MP3 files, you have
> to check whether there's any MP3 code bundled (which would have to be
> removed)
Till Maas wrote:
> [0] http://jengelh.medozas.de/projects/hxtools/
WTF, that's a hodgepodge of many completely unrelated tools. :-(
Whoever wants to package this will also need to check the tarball for
patent-encumbered stuff, e.g. there are tools working on MP3 files, you have
to check whether
On 8 March 2011 21:26, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to update pam_mount I need some programs of a tool collection from the
> upstream author. The tool collection[0] named hxtools contains a lot of
> stuff I do not want to package. Is there any reason to only package the
> two tools I need and add ot
> "TM" == Till Maas writes:
TM> Is there any reason to only package the two tools I need and add
TM> others whenever someone requests it? Would someone disapprove this
TM> in a package review?
I don't see what would require you to package every piece of
functionality included in a upstream t
Hi,
to update pam_mount I need some programs of a tool collection from the
upstream author. The tool collection[0] named hxtools contains a lot of
stuff I do not want to package. Is there any reason to only package the
two tools I need and add others whenever someone requests it?
Would someone dis
