closing old bugs
Hi, I would like some advice about closing old (?outdated) bug reports. I've been going through the old bugs for my packages and found a few so old they used old libraries etc (e.g from Debian release 1.3). There are no recent reports about the same problem and the upstream source has gone through several versions since the original bug report, and I can't reproduce the bug. Regards Hussain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
closing old bugs
Hi, I would like some advice about closing old (?outdated) bug reports. I've been going through the old bugs for my packages and found a few so old they used old libraries etc (e.g from Debian release 1.3). There are no recent reports about the same problem and the upstream source has gone through several versions since the original bug report, and I can't reproduce the bug. Regards Hussain
removing old conffiles on upgrade
Hi, I've just changed the directories of the conffile, binaries etc. to conform with Policy 3.5.5.0. The old conffile dir was /etc/X11/filerunner and the new one is /etc/filerunner and the problem is that when installing new package, and an older version is installed, dpkg gives an error message, and the old conffile directory, not being empty, does not get removed. I've tried several things in prerm along the lines if [ $1 = upgrade ]; then rm -rf /etc/X11/filerunner fi but it does not work. Any help much appreciated. Regards Hussain
license question and problems
Hi, I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me. I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub directory of my package. I have e-mailed the authors of this program (babel) about my ITP and to clarify the license but so far have received no reply. (I also politely asked about the possibility of placing it under the GPL.) The license for babel is: This software is provided on an as is basis, and without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the authors or the University of Arizona be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from use or distribution of this software. The University of Arizona also shall not be liable for any claim against any user of this program by any third party. (That's it!) My questions are: 1) Is the above license OK for Debian? 2) If so, is it OK to go ahead if I do not get a reply from the authors? 3) The new gdis package also depends on the Debian povray package, which is in non-free: I assume that my gdis package will therefore also have to go in non-free? Regards, Hussain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license question and problems
Hi, Thanks for all the helpful replies. On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:49:17PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: Hi Hussain, On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: Hi, I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me. I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub directory of my package. Why don't you package babel in an extra *.deb and you gdis in another one? Is there any special reason for the merging you intend? Just convenience and because babel is very specialized and (?) unlikely to be of interest in itself. But maybe two .debs is the best way to proceed. The license for babel is: This software is provided on an as is basis, and without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the authors or the University of Arizona be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from use or distribution of this software. The University of Arizona also shall not be liable for any claim against any user of this program by any third party. (That's it!) First of all, IANDD and IANAL, but here we go anyway... My questions are: 1) Is the above license OK for Debian? It cannot go into main, because it doesn't explicitely allow modification (among others)... It can't go into contrib either, for the same reason. And, yes, the license is really quite vague... That's all I could find: it's in the source tarball and other info about babel gives no real license such as BSD etc. It doesn't even explicitely allow redistribution, so it probably cannot go into non-free either (?) IT says [...] use or distribution of this software. I doubt that this is an explicit permission to distribute the software, but I'm not sure, here. 2) If so, is it OK to go ahead if I do not get a reply from the authors? Depends. If you put it into non-free it's OK, I guess... (Only if it's allowed to go into non-free, of course) 3) The new gdis package also depends on the Debian povray package, which is in non-free: I assume that my gdis package will therefore also have to go in non-free? If your package could otherwise go into main, but depends on something in non-free or in contrib, your package must go into contrib... (CC'ed debian-devel, that's where it belongs to...) HTH, Uwe. -- : Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---: | http://htsserver.sourceforge.net -- Holsham Traders| | http://unmaintained.sourceforge.net -- Unmaintained Free Software | : http://www.hermann-uwe.de --- :wq -: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license question and problems
Hi, I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me. I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub directory of my package. I have e-mailed the authors of this program (babel) about my ITP and to clarify the license but so far have received no reply. (I also politely asked about the possibility of placing it under the GPL.) The license for babel is: This software is provided on an as is basis, and without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the authors or the University of Arizona be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from use or distribution of this software. The University of Arizona also shall not be liable for any claim against any user of this program by any third party. (That's it!) My questions are: 1) Is the above license OK for Debian? 2) If so, is it OK to go ahead if I do not get a reply from the authors? 3) The new gdis package also depends on the Debian povray package, which is in non-free: I assume that my gdis package will therefore also have to go in non-free? Regards, Hussain
Re: license question and problems
Hi, Thanks for all the helpful replies. On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:49:17PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: Hi Hussain, On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:18:38PM +0100, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: Hi, I have an ITP for a program (gdis, which is GPL) which requires another program (babel) whose license is a bit vague, at least to me. I intend to create binary for babel from the babel source in a sub directory of my package. Why don't you package babel in an extra *.deb and you gdis in another one? Is there any special reason for the merging you intend? Just convenience and because babel is very specialized and (?) unlikely to be of interest in itself. But maybe two .debs is the best way to proceed. The license for babel is: This software is provided on an as is basis, and without warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall the authors or the University of Arizona be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages arising from use or distribution of this software. The University of Arizona also shall not be liable for any claim against any user of this program by any third party. (That's it!) First of all, IANDD and IANAL, but here we go anyway... My questions are: 1) Is the above license OK for Debian? It cannot go into main, because it doesn't explicitely allow modification (among others)... It can't go into contrib either, for the same reason. And, yes, the license is really quite vague... That's all I could find: it's in the source tarball and other info about babel gives no real license such as BSD etc. It doesn't even explicitely allow redistribution, so it probably cannot go into non-free either (?) IT says [...] use or distribution of this software. I doubt that this is an explicit permission to distribute the software, but I'm not sure, here. 2) If so, is it OK to go ahead if I do not get a reply from the authors? Depends. If you put it into non-free it's OK, I guess... (Only if it's allowed to go into non-free, of course) 3) The new gdis package also depends on the Debian povray package, which is in non-free: I assume that my gdis package will therefore also have to go in non-free? If your package could otherwise go into main, but depends on something in non-free or in contrib, your package must go into contrib... (CC'ed debian-devel, that's where it belongs to...) HTH, Uwe. -- : Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---: | http://htsserver.sourceforge.net -- Holsham Traders| | http://unmaintained.sourceforge.net -- Unmaintained Free Software | : http://www.hermann-uwe.de --- :wq -: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/usr/share policy
Hi, I have a package, gstar, which places various lists of stars in /usr/share/starchart since gstar is a gtk front-end to the starchart programme. My question is: is there any policy or guidelines about naming stuff in in /usr/share? Should the dir be named /usr/share/gstar as that is the name of the package, or can it be /usr/share/starchart since the starchart programme without the front-end (GUI) would place what is in there anyway? (Hope that's clear...) Thanks, Hussain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/usr/share policy
Hi, I have a package, gstar, which places various lists of stars in /usr/share/starchart since gstar is a gtk front-end to the starchart programme. My question is: is there any policy or guidelines about naming stuff in in /usr/share? Should the dir be named /usr/share/gstar as that is the name of the package, or can it be /usr/share/starchart since the starchart programme without the front-end (GUI) would place what is in there anyway? (Hope that's clear...) Thanks, Hussain
Anyone upload package for me? (Awaiting DAM approval)
Hello, Apologies for asking again, but can anyone upload a package for me? The package is ncftp (version 2: 3.0.3-1) which is a new upstream release of ncftp (previous version 3.0.2 is already in unstable). I recently adopted the package. Lintian gives no errors, and AFAIK it works OK. It's available (not apt-gettable) at: http://www.spacetimesystems.co.uk/ncftp.html Any help would be much appreciated, thanks. Hussain
sponsor required for gstar (ITP #88503)
Hi, Would anyone like to sponsor/upload a new Debian package for me? I'm awaiting DAM approval, so need someone to upload the package to testing since I've not yet got an account. I've already got a couple of packages in testing (uploaded by others). The new package is gstar (ITP #88503) and it's available at: http://www.spacetimesystems.co.uk/gstar.html (not apt-gettable). I've checked the package with lintian, which produces no errors. BTW I've put this in the *new* science section, which I hope is OK. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Hussain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sponsor required for gstar (ITP #88503)
Hi, Would anyone like to sponsor/upload a new Debian package for me? I'm awaiting DAM approval, so need someone to upload the package to testing since I've not yet got an account. I've already got a couple of packages in testing (uploaded by others). The new package is gstar (ITP #88503) and it's available at: http://www.spacetimesystems.co.uk/gstar.html (not apt-gettable). I've checked the package with lintian, which produces no errors. BTW I've put this in the *new* science section, which I hope is OK. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Hussain
Packaging Xfonts
Hi, I intend to package a small collection of Arabic fonts, currently availble as pcf, and would like to know if, for the Debs source package, they have to be in bdf and then compiled into pcf for the Debs font package itself. I have xtobdf, and was wondering if there are any other such utilities available. Also, I presume I have to/must include an xinstall fonts in the Debs fonts package to do mkfontdir and xset rehash etc.? Thanxs. Hussain
Hoping for sponsorship - hdate
Hi, I have packaged hdate, with the deb and source available at: http://www.crosswinds.net/~yusuf/hdates.html and I am looking for a sponsor, as I am not yet a developer. hdate calculates lunar Hijra dates and calenders, as used by about one-fifth of the world's population. I would also like to maintain an orphaned package (or two) such as zile and emacs19.
ITP hdate
hdate is a simple package to generate Hijra dates from AD dates and to print a Hijra calender for a given AD month or year (past, present and future). The Hijra (lunar) calender is used by Muslims worldwide. The Debian packages and source code are available at: http://www.crosswinds.net/~yusuf/hdates.html Please note this site is not apt-gettable, and I am not a Debian developer. I am seeking sponsorship. I would also like to take on the orphaned package sysutils. pgpmaCRUB7b9y.pgp Description: PGP signature
