Hi Michael and Justin,
Thank you for your help! I've submitted a bug (#359707) and will follow
its progress.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
Hi folks,
I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
described below.
The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
forwarding it to this list because I've not (yet) received a
Ed Hill writes:
Hi folks,
I'm an occasional Debian user and, while doing package reviews for
Fedora Extras, stumbled into the Eterm mix-of-source-licenses situation
described below.
The following email was sent to the Debian Eterm maintainer. I'm
forwarding it to this list because I've
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
maintainer to sort out license
Ed Hill writes:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 23:10 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
This kind of licensing conflict is a release-critical bug in the
package under Debian Policy. The ideal solution for Debian is exactly
what you suggested in the bug comments: work with the upstream
maintainer to
Ed Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm asking because the main upstream author (Michael Jennings) seems to
think that the Fedora Guidelines (which are in some ways quite similar
to the much-older DSC) are silly rules which discriminate against
packages for no real reason:
6 matches
Mail list logo
