Am 19.05.2013 20:17, schrieb Russ Allbery:
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
autoconf2.64
The documentation has subsequently been relicensed upstream to remove the
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:44:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I would like to save the effort to upload that. And if somebody wants to nmu
that, please just append dfsg to the version, not +dfsg. +dfsg is annoyingly
popular, but prevents updates of something like 2.64.1.
$ dpkg
Matthias Klose d...@debian.org writes:
I would like to save the effort to upload that. And if somebody wants
to nmu that, please just append dfsg to the version, not +dfsg. +dfsg
is annoyingly popular, but prevents updates of something like 2.64.1.
I think you're confusing +dfsg with .dfsg.
I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
This work is based on the new lintian check, then manual checking.
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
autoconf2.64
binutils
chromium-browser
dico
docbook-defguide
ecl
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:36:33 +0200
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
autoconf2.64
binutils
chromium-browser
dico
docbook-defguide
ecl
eclipse-linuxtools
I plan ASAP to
Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com writes:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
autoconf2.64
The documentation has subsequently been relicensed upstream to remove the
invariant sections requirement. I'm not sure what our
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
This work is based on the new lintian check, then manual checking.
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or
Hi,
Le 19/05/2013 17:32, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit :
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote:
I do am doing an update on this list and fill bug:
Isn’t the point of mailing to debian-devel to gather more opinion
*before* filling those bugt, or did
* David Prévot taf...@debian.org, 2013-05-19, 18:03:
It’s commonly good practice to (B)CC the actual maintainers too with
such “in advance” notification,
Indeed. You should get a PGP-signed permission from the maintainers (or
from tech-ctte) before filing any bug with severity = minor.
--
* Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 21:25:
Status update:
[...]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=jw...@debian.orgtag=gfdl
binutils
gdb
gengetopt
texi2html
I haven't wrapped my head around these yet... I'll try again in a few
days, unless somebody beats me to it
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[..]
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic source
package in two different source packages, one for main
* Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
programs) and another for non-free (shipping documentation), with the
main package suggesting
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org wrote:
* Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
programs) and another for
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
* Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org, 2012-12-12, 10:30:
If I understand correctly, the way to go is to split every problematic
source package in two different source packages, one for main (shipping
programs) and another for non-free (shipping
Status update:
adplug
autoconf2.59
bash
cflow
cgdb
chromium-browser
cpio
ecl
gcc-4.7
gcc-h8300-hms
gcc-snapshot
gcj-4.7
gcl
gforth
gmerlin
gsl
gtypist
kbuild
kdesdk
libbinio
muse-el
readline6
source-highlight
tar
vcdimager
xemacs21-packages
I filed bugs against these:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
First one should ask upstream if they are willing to relicense the
documentation. If they are not, then removing the documentation or
moving it into a non-free package is the only option left.
It's worth noting that
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:04:22AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net, 2012-12-01, 12:10:
Any volunteers to file bugs?
I'll file them myself.
Please collect them together with a usertag to help others who
may wish to get involved.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[...]
groff
I was quite careful to ensure that this was not a problem. Per groff's
LICENSES file, all files that are part of groff are
On 12/02/2012 05:16 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Yes, this _is_ exactly what we need.
1. Debian will remain 100% free [1]
And we better not release until licensing problems in main are resolved.
We all agree to the social contract and the DFSG, and you
know it. There's absolutely no need to
* Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net, 2012-12-01, 12:10:
Any volunteers to file bugs?
I'll file them myself.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
adplug
autoconf2.59
bash
binutils
cflow
cgdb
chromium-browser
cpio
ecl
gcc-4.7
gcc-h8300-hms
gcc-snapshot
gcj-4.7
gcl
gdb
gengetopt
gforth
gmerlin
groff
gsl
gtypist
kbuild
kdesdk
libbinio
mathgl
* Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net, 2012-12-01, 12:10:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
To clarify: this is a list of _source_ packages.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:10:05PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with
Invariant Sections or Cover Texts:
[..]
As per GR 2006-001 such works are not suitable for main:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
Would you mind sharing the script
On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
bash
binutils
tar
As per GR 2006-001 such works are not suitable for main:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
Any volunteers to file bugs?
On 1 December 2012 15:42, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org wrote:
On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
bash
binutils
tar
As per GR 2006-001 such works are not
Am 01.12.2012 13:20, schrieb Jakub Wilk:
* Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net, 2012-12-01, 12:10:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
To clarify: this is a list of _source_ packages.
your level of detail is appreciated.
--
To
On 02/12/2012 05:16, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On 1 December 2012 15:42, Jean-Christophe Dubacq
jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org wrote:
On 01/12/2012 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
These packages include documentation licensed under GFDL with Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts:
bash
binutils
27 matches
Mail list logo
